Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19443.3EEF054C@nummer-3.proteosys>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:41:48 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 x-vm-v5-data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil t t nil][nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.3EEF054C" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: David Rhead's contributions Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1991 16:51:18 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" Sender: To: "Rainer M. Schoepf" Reply-To: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 301 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.3EEF054C Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'd like to reply to David Rhead's recent contributions to this list. 1. His summary of page sizes and typefaces for book and journal = publishing is of course interesting in its own right, but its relevance with = respect to the discussion going on this list is not high -- this is not meant as a personal criticism! Getting the sizes and typefaces right for a document style for = scientific books or journals always turns out to be the easiest part, in my = experience. LaTeX needs more tools for designing page layouts, font sets -- the new = font selection scheme is already a major improvement -- and section headings, = but summaries of page sizes or section heading schemes are a bit beside the = point here. A few details: 1.1. As for the use of typeface sizes >10pt: production of camera ready = copy on a larger page frame, using \normalsize =3D 12pt, followed by = photographic reduction, is normal practice here. `What design would one have for a = 12pt journal?' is not the right question. 1.2. Times Roman can never be the normal font as long as the only font = _all_ TeX sites have is Computer Modern. Far more important: the new font = selection scheme combined with the virtual-font mechanism enables you to make a document-style option for _any_ font you like. 1.3. As for Sebastian's comment: there is nothing wrong with using = `article', especially with \baselinestretch > 1.0 and in combination with the 11pt = or 12pt option, for producing a preprint of a research paper. In our, i.e. Elsevier's, case the printed version produced by the author is excellent = for conventional copy-editing. For compuscripts, it doesn't even matter what = the author uses to print his article, since we put in a new document style = during the production stage. Only in a very limited number of cases do we = accept the printed version for actual production of the book or journal. So `are there *any* journals which would accept it?' is the wrong = question, at least in Elsevier's case. 2. The paper on reference lists concentrates too much on layout and not enough on structure. For a, in my humble opinion, much more valuable discussion of LaTeX 3.0, reference lists and BibTeX I'd like to refer to = the talk Frank Mittelbach gave at the Cork conference last year. As for `standards in academic publishing': there aren't any! At one of = the first meetings of the Dutch TeX Users Group there was a discussion about = this and a staff member of Kluwer Scientific Publishers argued that every publisher has his own standards. It's the same here at ESP: every = publishing unit within our company has its own standards, and even though there is something like an `ESP house style', there is also plenty of variation. I'm totally opposed to the idea of having different coding schemes for different systems of citation. In my opinion, this goes completely = against the basic idea behind LaTeX and SGML, namely separation of form and = contents. Consider the amount of re-coding when switching from the number system = to the name-year system! To David's review I'd like to add that \bibitem's have no sub-division, = at least not one that is indicated by explicit control sequences (`tags'). Instead, the tagging of \bibitem's is done _outside_ LaTeX, which has = always struck me as odd. Nico ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Nico Poppelier Elsevier Science Publishers, APD, R&D Department Sara Burgerhartstraat 25, 1055 KV Amsterdam, The Netherlands Phone: +(20)5862504. Fax: +(20)5862425. Email: n.poppelier@elsevier.nl ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.3EEF054C Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: David Rhead's contributions

I'd like to reply to David Rhead's recent = contributions to this list.


1. His summary of page sizes and typefaces for book = and journal publishing
is of course interesting in its own right, but its = relevance with respect to
the discussion going on this list is not high -- this = is not meant as a
personal criticism!

Getting the sizes and typefaces right for a document = style for scientific
books or journals always turns out to be the easiest = part, in my experience.

LaTeX needs more tools for designing page layouts, = font sets -- the new font
selection scheme is already a major improvement -- = and section headings, but
summaries of page sizes or section heading schemes = are a bit beside the point
here.

A few details:

1.1. As for the use of typeface sizes >10pt: = production of camera ready copy
on a larger page frame, using \normalsize =3D 12pt, = followed by photographic
reduction, is normal practice here. `What design = would one have for a 12pt
journal?' is not the right question.

1.2. Times Roman can never be the normal font as long = as the only font _all_
TeX sites have is Computer Modern. Far more = important: the new font selection
scheme combined with the virtual-font mechanism = enables you to make a
document-style option for _any_ font you like.

1.3. As for Sebastian's comment: there is nothing = wrong with using `article',
especially with \baselinestretch > 1.0 and in = combination with the 11pt or
12pt option, for producing a preprint of a research = paper. In our, i.e.
Elsevier's, case the printed version produced by the = author is excellent for
conventional copy-editing. For compuscripts, it = doesn't even matter what the
author uses to print his article, since we put in a = new document style during
the production stage. Only in a very limited number = of cases do we accept the
printed version for actual production of the book or = journal.
So `are there *any* journals which would accept it?' = is the wrong question,
at least in Elsevier's case.


2. The paper on reference lists concentrates too much = on layout and not
enough on structure. For a, in my humble opinion, = much more valuable
discussion of LaTeX 3.0, reference lists and BibTeX = I'd like to refer to the
talk Frank Mittelbach gave at the Cork conference = last year.

As for `standards in academic publishing': there = aren't any! At one of the
first meetings of the Dutch TeX Users Group there was = a discussion about this
and a staff member of Kluwer Scientific Publishers = argued that every
publisher has his own standards. It's the same here = at ESP:  every publishing
unit within our company has its own standards, and = even though there is
something like an `ESP house style', there is also = plenty of variation.

I'm totally opposed to the idea of having different = coding schemes for
different systems of citation. In my opinion, this = goes completely against
the basic idea behind LaTeX and SGML, namely = separation of form and contents.
Consider the amount of re-coding when switching from = the number system to the
name-year system!

To David's review I'd like to add that \bibitem's have = no sub-division, at
least not one that is indicated by explicit control = sequences (`tags').
Instead, the tagging of \bibitem's is done _outside_ = LaTeX, which has always
struck me as odd.


Nico

----------------------------------------------------------------= ------
Nico Poppelier
Elsevier Science Publishers, APD, R&D = Department
Sara Burgerhartstraat 25, 1055 KV Amsterdam, The = Netherlands
Phone: +(20)5862504. Fax: +(20)5862425. Email: = n.poppelier@elsevier.nl


------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.3EEF054C--