Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19443.41076B14@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_01C19443.41076B14" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Multi-author works Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1991 10:54:21 +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: 323 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.41076B14 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Michael raised the question of a book that consists of contributions by various authors. Obviously, at the moment, he has to do whatever is necessary to get this particular book published. However, it would be nice if, in the long = term, there was a recognised way of producing these things. So I'll comment = on the questions he raised from a long-term point of view, even if the comments are not relevant to his short-term difficulty. It seems part of the question of a "conference-proceedings style" that I think Frank mentioned informally at Cork (unless I've remembered wrongly). Generally, I think that having jargon/structures designed for one = situation and then mis-using them in another situation will tend to give confusion and trouble. If computer-people and publishing-people use different = jargon, everyone is going to waste time translating from one to the other. If they use the same jargon (in this case "chapter") but mean different = things, that's even worse! In this situation, "being out of synch with the LaTeX manual" is only to be expected, since the LaTeX 2.09 standard styles weren't really designed to handle multi-author works. Using \author when its not clear whether the author is the "overall editor" or the "author of this = unit", or \chapter when the unit concerned isn't what everyone thinks of as a = chapter, seems like asking for trouble. The fundamental problem seems to be that the 2.09 standard styles don't include one that is designed for dealing with multi-author works. So, what's required? Judging by the Chicago Manual of Style and = Butcher's "Copy-editing", we are talking about "multiauthor works", that consist of "contributions" which are written by "contributors", where the whole thing is made into a book-like object by a "volume editor". So an appropriate set of jargon/structure might go like: \documentstyle[...]{multiauthor} \volumeeditor{...} \begin{frontmatter} ... \end{frontmatter} \begin{maintext} \begin{contribution} \contributor{...} ... \end{contribution} \begin{contribution} \contributor{...} ... \end{contribution} \begin{backmatter} ... \end{backmatter} "Contribution" sounds like a word that is already in use in this = context, so that people in the same situation as Michael and his publishers could = use it to avoid confusion about "the publishers calling the units chapters, but \chapter not being appropriate". Its sufficiently neutral to allow both designs that have "chapter numbers" and those that have no "chapter = numbers". [Within each contribution, it does seem more like a "journal article" = than like a "\chapter" so, if \volumeeditor was adopted to mean "volume = editor", one could probably use \author rather than \contributor without (too = much) confusion.] Hence, if necessary, \volumetableofcontents, \contribtableofcontents, etc. perhaps? If an approach such as that outlined above was adopted, only a small proportion of the people involved (the volume-editor, the publisher's = staff, the style-file hacker) would need to be aware of any of the above. The individual contributor to a multi-author work can regard themselves as producing a paper (e.g. in 2.09's \documentstyle{article}); indeed the volume-editor might send them some "instructions for contributors" = that tell them to do just that. So specialised commands/environments (such as "contribution") needn't necessarily be mentioned in the documentation aimed at ordinary end-users/contributors. Contributors could pick up \section etc. from the body of the LaTeX 3.0 manual; details (of = specialised environments like "contribution") needed by volume-editors could be = given in an appendix of the LaTeX 3.0 manual or just as comments in the style = files. David Rhead (JANET: d.rhead@uk.ac.nottingham.ccc.vme) ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.41076B14 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Multi-author works

Michael raised the question of a book that consists of = contributions by
various authors.

Obviously, at the moment, he has to do whatever is = necessary to get this
particular book published.  However, it would be = nice if, in the long term,
there was a recognised way of producing these = things.  So I'll comment on
the questions he raised from a long-term point of = view, even if the
comments are not relevant to his short-term = difficulty.  It seems part
of the question of a "conference-proceedings = style" that I think Frank
mentioned informally at Cork (unless I've remembered = wrongly).

Generally, I think that having jargon/structures = designed for one situation
and then mis-using them in another situation will = tend to give confusion
and trouble.  If computer-people and = publishing-people use different jargon,
everyone is going to waste time translating from one = to the other.  If
they use the same jargon (in this case = "chapter") but mean different things,
that's even worse!

In this situation, "being out of synch with the = LaTeX manual" is only
to be expected, since the LaTeX 2.09 standard styles = weren't really
designed to handle multi-author works.  Using = \author when its not
clear whether the author is the "overall = editor" or the "author of this unit",
or \chapter when the unit concerned isn't what = everyone thinks of as a chapter,
seems like asking for trouble.  The fundamental = problem seems to be that
the 2.09 standard styles don't include one that is = designed for dealing
with multi-author works.

So, what's required?  Judging by the Chicago = Manual of Style and Butcher's
"Copy-editing", we are talking about = "multiauthor works", that consist
of "contributions" which are written by = "contributors", where the whole
thing is made into a book-like object by a = "volume editor".  So an
appropriate set of jargon/structure might go = like:
      = \documentstyle[...]{multiauthor}
      = \volumeeditor{...}
      = \begin{frontmatter}
      ...
      = \end{frontmatter}
      = \begin{maintext}
      = \begin{contribution}
          = \contributor{...}
          = ...
      = \end{contribution}
      = \begin{contribution}
          = \contributor{...}
          = ...
      = \end{contribution}
      = \begin{backmatter}
      ...
      = \end{backmatter}
"Contribution" sounds like a word that is = already in use in this context, so
that people in the same situation as Michael and his = publishers could use it
to avoid confusion about "the publishers calling = the units chapters, but
\chapter not being appropriate".  Its = sufficiently neutral to allow both
designs that have "chapter numbers" and = those that have no "chapter numbers".
[Within each contribution, it does seem more like a = "journal article" than
like a "\chapter" so, if \volumeeditor was = adopted to mean "volume editor",
one could probably use \author rather than = \contributor without (too much)
confusion.]  Hence, if necessary, = \volumetableofcontents,
\contribtableofcontents, etc. perhaps?

If an approach such as that outlined above was = adopted, only a small
proportion of the people involved (the volume-editor, = the publisher's staff,
the style-file hacker) would need to be aware of any = of the above.
The individual contributor to a multi-author work can = regard themselves
as producing a paper (e.g. in 2.09's = \documentstyle{article});  indeed
the volume-editor might send them some = "instructions for contributors" that
tell them to do just that.  So specialised = commands/environments (such
as "contribution") needn't necessarily be = mentioned in the documentation
aimed at ordinary end-users/contributors.  = Contributors could pick up
\section etc. from the body of the LaTeX 3.0 manual; = details (of specialised
environments like "contribution") needed by = volume-editors could be given
in an appendix of the LaTeX 3.0 manual or just as = comments in the style files.


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

------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.41076B14--