Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19443.3FE079DC@nummer-3.proteosys>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:41:49 +0100 Return-Path: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.3FE079DC" x-vm-v5-data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil][nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: [David_Rhead@vme.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk: Styles in 3.0 "standard di stribution"] Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1991 13:33:40 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "Rainer Schoepf" Sender: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" To: "Rainer M. Schoepf" Reply-To: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 311 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.3FE079DC Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'm sending this on behalf of David Rhead. Let's hope that the listserv problems can be solved quickly. Rainer ------------------------------------------------------------------- --- Forwarded message : Subject: Styles in 3.0 "standard distribution" From: David_Rhead@UK.AC.NOTTINGHAM.CCC.VME Date: 3 Apr 91 11:57:22 To: latex-l%dhdurz1@uk.ac.earn-relay Msg ID: < 3 Apr 91 11:57:22 BST A102D1@UK.AC.NOTT.VME> You may remember my entry about "standard styles" on March 3rd. Here are a few comments about the subsequent comments. I started on March 3rd by recalling that Frank had mentioned (at Cork) = the idea of having both: 1. style files that emulate the effect of the 2.09 standard styles, book, article, report, etc. 2. some additional style files, analogous to, but different from, the present book, article and report, plus a "conference = proceedings" style. [I hope I've remembered Frank's remarks correctly, and that (2) isn't = just a figment of my imagination.] My suggestions were about (2). I don't know how definite Frank's plans are about "having some additional style files". If no-one has time to = do anything, neither my suggestions nor the subsequent comments matter much anyway. But if someone has time to do something about (2), they = might as well try to make the style files practically useful. This could be either by having designs that are aimed at a phototypesetter, on which "print size" will also be "publication size" (which was the = scenario I assumed) or by having designs that are intended for printing "too big" = followed by photographic reduction for publication (as mentioned by Nico). If something is done, please could the corresponding style files have comments stating the design assumptions, e.g. "This design is intended for ultimate publication (without reduction) on demi-octavo paper. If = printed on bigger paper, it produces crop marks to show the demi-octavo target = area." or "This design is intended for ultimate publication on B5 paper. To = achieve the effect intended by the designer, you must photoreduce the LaTeX-ed output to 70%" or "This design is only intended for use while you are writing your book. Unless you are proficient at writing LaTeX = style-files, you are advised to submit your book to a publisher whose staff can = supply style-files that will re-format the book prior to publication.". I.e. the assumptions should be made clear, so that people know what they have to do to get the effect the designer intended with the style-files = that form part of the standard distribution, and can make changes (if = necessary to keep their publisher happy) from a position of understanding the designer's assumptions/intentions rather than from a position of = ignorance. I'd have thought that Leslie's concern about people who are at the = "writing" stage, and are using standard laserprinter paper, would be catered for = by (1), i.e. the style-files that emulate the 2.09 standard styles. Frank reports Leslie as saying "book" describes the logical structures that are handled This is obviously true in the sense that LaTeX 2.09's book.sty etc. = define the logical structures that LaTeX 2.09's "book style" handles. But what if the logical structures that the 2.09 book.sty etc. handle aren't quite the logical structures of "a book" as understood by the rest of the = publishing industry? See, for example, pages 4 and 5 of the "Chicago Manual of = Style" (which has its origins pre-television) and pages 157-161 of Jan White's post-television "Graphic Design for the Electronic Age". A move towards = the industry's structures would be "a good thing" (e.g. it would make it = easier to implement design decisions like "within front matter we do this" and = "within back matter we do that"). If questions arise about whether any "additional style files, analogous to, ... the present book, etc." should implement 2.09 structures or "publishing-industry standard" = structures, I'd suggest a move towards the "publishing-industry standard" = structures. David Rhead (JANET: d.rhead@uk.ac.nottingham.ccc.vme) --- End of forwarded message ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.3FE079DC Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable [David_Rhead@vme.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk: Styles in 3.0 = "standard di stribution"]

I'm sending this on behalf of David Rhead. Let's hope = that the
listserv problems can be solved quickly.

Rainer

----------------------------------------------------------------= ---

--- Forwarded message :

Subject:  Styles in 3.0 "standard = distribution"
From:     = David_Rhead@UK.AC.NOTTINGHAM.CCC.VME
Date:     3 Apr 91 = 11:57:22
To:       = latex-l%dhdurz1@uk.ac.earn-relay
Msg ID:   < 3 Apr 91 11:57:22 BST = A102D1@UK.AC.NOTT.VME>

You may remember my entry about "standard = styles" on March 3rd.
Here are a few comments about the subsequent = comments.

I started on March 3rd by recalling that Frank had = mentioned (at Cork) the
idea of having both:
1.  style files that emulate the effect of the = 2.09 standard styles,
    book, article, report, etc.
2.  some additional style files, analogous to, = but different from,
    the present book, article and = report, plus a "conference proceedings"
    style.
[I hope I've remembered Frank's remarks correctly, = and that (2) isn't just
a figment of my imagination.]

My suggestions were about (2).  I don't know how = definite Frank's plans
are about "having some additional style = files".  If no-one has time to do
anything, neither my suggestions nor the subsequent = comments matter
much anyway.  But if someone has time to do = something about (2), they might
as well try to make the style files practically = useful.  This could be
either by having designs that are aimed at a = phototypesetter, on which
       "print = size" will also be "publication size" (which was the = scenario
       I = assumed)
or     by having designs that are = intended for printing "too big" followed
       by photographic = reduction for publication (as mentioned by Nico).
If something is done, please could the corresponding = style files have
comments stating the design assumptions, e.g. = "This design is intended
for ultimate publication (without reduction) on = demi-octavo paper.  If printed
on bigger paper, it produces crop marks to show the = demi-octavo target area."
or "This design is intended for ultimate = publication on B5 paper.  To achieve
the effect intended by the designer, you must = photoreduce the LaTeX-ed
output to 70%" or "This design is only = intended for use while you are
writing your book.  Unless you are proficient at = writing LaTeX style-files,
you are advised to submit your book to a publisher = whose staff can supply
style-files that will re-format the book prior to = publication.".
I.e. the assumptions should be made clear, so that = people know what they
have to do to get the effect the designer intended = with the style-files that
form part of the standard distribution, and can make = changes (if necessary
to keep their publisher happy) from a position of = understanding the
designer's assumptions/intentions rather than from a = position of ignorance.

I'd have thought that Leslie's concern about people = who are at the "writing"
stage, and are using standard laserprinter paper, = would be catered for by
(1), i.e. the style-files that emulate the 2.09 = standard styles.

Frank reports Leslie as saying
      "book" = describes the logical structures that are handled
This is obviously true in the sense that LaTeX 2.09's = book.sty etc. define the
logical structures that LaTeX 2.09's "book = style" handles.  But what if
the logical structures that the 2.09 book.sty etc. = handle aren't quite
the logical structures of "a book" as = understood by the rest of the publishing
industry?  See, for example, pages 4 and 5 of = the "Chicago Manual of Style"
(which has its origins pre-television) and pages = 157-161 of Jan White's
post-television "Graphic Design for the = Electronic Age".  A move towards the
industry's structures would be "a good = thing" (e.g. it would make it easier to
implement design decisions like "within front = matter we do this" and "within
back matter we do that").  If questions = arise about whether any
   "additional style files, analogous = to, ... the present book, etc."
should implement 2.09 structures or = "publishing-industry standard" structures,
I'd suggest a move towards the = "publishing-industry standard" structures.

David Rhead
(JANET: d.rhead@uk.ac.nottingham.ccc.vme)
--- End of forwarded message



------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.3FE079DC--