Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19443.40AA32BC@nummer-3.proteosys>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:41:51 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 x-vm-v5-data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil 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_01C19443.40AA32BC" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Structure, e.g. of books Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1991 21:46:08 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: Sender: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" To: "Rainer M. Schoepf" Reply-To: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 320 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.40AA32BC Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Here are a few comments about Chris's and Nico's postings. Martin Bryan gives a DTD for textbooks in Appendix C of his "Author's Guide to SGML". I also seem to remember that the British Library had a project that was defining some DTDs (but I could have remembered = wrongly). Irrespective of whether there are formal standards yet (in terms of SGML DTDs, etc.), there does seem to be an informal consensus about "the structure of a book" within the publishing industry. See, for example, Hugh Williamson. "Methods of book design", chapters 7 and 8. Judith Butcher. "Copy-editing", chapters 7-10. Ruari McLean. "Thames and Hudson manual of typography", chapter = 10. Jan V. White. "Graphic design for the electronic age", pages = 157-161. "Chicago Manual of Style", pages 4 and 5. With a bit of luck, we'll find that the emerging DTDs are consistent with the previous informal consensus. For example, if the AAP and = Chicago University Press both manage to produce books in the end, they must both be talking about the same thing! As regards the "more elements and sub-elements, especially in the front matter", I think that this is a price worth paying if it means that LaTeX and the .sty file can relieve an author of more of the work. With more accurate knowledge of the structure, LaTeX could take care of details like: - when to have page-numbers, and whether they should be arabic or roman (rather than authors having to mess about with \chapter*, \addcontentsline, \pagenumbering{roman}, \pagenumbering{arabic} "right after the first \chapter command") - when to have table-of-contents entries. This would help "free authors from formatting concerns to allow them to concentrate on writing". David Rhead (JANET: d.rhead@uk.ac.nottingham.ccc.vme) ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.40AA32BC Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Structure, e.g. of books

Here are a few comments about Chris's and Nico's = postings.

Martin Bryan gives a DTD for textbooks in Appendix C = of his "Author's
Guide to SGML".  I also seem to remember = that the British Library had
a project that was defining some DTDs (but I could = have remembered wrongly).

Irrespective of whether there are formal standards yet = (in terms of SGML
DTDs, etc.), there does seem to be an informal = consensus about "the
structure of a book" within the publishing = industry.  See, for example,
      Hugh Williamson.  = "Methods of book design", chapters 7 and 8.
      Judith Butcher.  = "Copy-editing", chapters 7-10.
      Ruari McLean.  = "Thames and Hudson manual of typography", chapter 10.
      Jan V. White. = "Graphic design for the electronic age", pages 157-161.
      "Chicago Manual = of Style", pages 4 and 5.

With a bit of luck, we'll find that the emerging DTDs = are consistent
with the previous informal consensus.  For = example, if the AAP and Chicago
University Press both manage to produce books in the = end, they must both
be talking about the same thing!

As regards the "more elements and sub-elements, = especially in the front
matter", I think that this is a price worth = paying if it means that
LaTeX and the .sty file can relieve an author of more = of the work.
With more accurate knowledge of the structure, LaTeX = could take care of
details like:
- when to have page-numbers, and whether they should = be arabic or roman
  (rather than authors having to mess about with = \chapter*,
  \addcontentsline, \pagenumbering{roman}, = \pagenumbering{arabic}
  "right after the first \chapter = command")
- when to have table-of-contents entries.
This would help "free authors from formatting = concerns to allow them to
concentrate on writing".


David Rhead
(JANET: d.rhead@uk.ac.nottingham.ccc.vme)

------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.40AA32BC--