Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19443.459E9A4C@nummer-3.proteosys>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:41:59 +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_01C19443.459E9A4C" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: preface.tex Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1991 01:00:00 +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: 370 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.459E9A4C Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable \chapter*{Preface} \addcontentsline{toc}{chapter}{Preface} Frank Mittelbach suggested that I might produce some material for consideration by \LaTeX-people at Dedham. This document is the result. My involvement with \LaTeX\ 3.0 \cite{lamport-86,m+s-89} started early = in 1990 when I heard Chris Rowley announce that opinions were invited about the facilities that should be provided in the new \LaTeX. Accordingly, = I submitted a \lq\lq wish list'', and have since submitted various = additional ideas. The present document is an attempt to put these wishes etc.\ together in one place. It has been put together {\em in a hurry} from various = sources; hence you may find inconsistencies of detail and requests for facilities = that have in fact already been provided. (Frank only gave me two-and-a-bit weeks notice!) I've included some extracts from e-mail about related topics.% \footnote{My \lq\lq algorithm'' for selecting e-mail to quote has been an uneasy compromise between thinking that I shouldn't confine the document to my own views, and wondering whether people would want remarks they made in one context reproduced in another context. I apologise to anyone whose views I've omitted/included when I should have included/omitted them. Where I've omitted part of an e-mail message, I've used \dots\ to indicate the omission.} I realize that the result is over-long and repetitive, but I don't have time to check what's already been done, or to think how to = cut the material down and re-organise it. In my case, most \lq\lq wishes'' are just particular cases of a general wish \lq\lq that \LaTeX\ would make it easy to produce documents that conform to the conventions that are usual in traditional publishing'', since most of the end-users who tell me \lq\lq I don't like the way = \LaTeX\ does this'' are, I think, really saying \lq\lq I'd just like \LaTeX\ to = do things like normal publishers do them'' (either because they want to = pass the result on to a publisher, or simply because traditional conventions \lq\lq look right'' to them). I've generally tried to determine \lq\lq traditional publishing = practice'' by consulting the manuals to which a publisher's copy-editors, = designers, and typesetting staff might refer. I assume that the {\it Chicago = Manual of Style} \cite{chicago-82}, Butcher's {\it Copy-editing}, \cite{butcher-81}, McLean's {\it Manual of Typography} \cite{mclean-80}, Williamson's {\it Methods of Book Design} \cite{williamson-83} and = Hart's {\it Rules} \cite{hart-83} are representative of such manuals. Since I assume that \LaTeX\ is, and always will be, intended for producing = formally structured documents rather than for implementing \lq\lq grid-based designs'', I presume that it is unrealistic to try to support more than = a selection of the features described in books (such as \cite{miles-87} = and \cite{white-88}) that are aimed at the \lq\lq design for desktop publishing'' market. However, the classes of document that are of = interest to the Text Encoding Initiative \cite{tei-90} seem similar to the = classes for which \LaTeX\ is intended, so I assume that the Initiative's views = on structure are relevant (although their objectives are broader than just typesetting). I'm very aware that it's easier \lq\lq to wish'' than \lq\lq to grant wishes''. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.459E9A4C Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable preface.tex

\chapter*{Preface}
\addcontentsline{toc}{chapter}{Preface}

Frank Mittelbach suggested that I might produce some = material for
consideration by \LaTeX-people at Dedham.  This = document is the result.

My involvement with \LaTeX\ 3.0 = \cite{lamport-86,m+s-89} started early in
1990 when I heard Chris Rowley announce that opinions = were invited about
the facilities that should be provided in the new = \LaTeX.  Accordingly, I
submitted a \lq\lq wish list'', and have since = submitted various additional
ideas.

The present document is an attempt to put these wishes = etc.\ together in
one place.  It has been put together {\em in a = hurry} from various sources;
hence you may find inconsistencies of detail and = requests for facilities that
have in fact already been provided.
(Frank only gave me two-and-a-bit weeks notice!) I've = included some
extracts from e-mail about related topics.%
\footnote{My \lq\lq algorithm''
for selecting e-mail to quote has been an uneasy = compromise between
thinking that I shouldn't confine the document to my = own views, and
wondering whether people would want remarks they made = in one context
reproduced in another context.  I apologise to = anyone whose views I've
omitted/included when I should have included/omitted = them.  Where I've
omitted part of an e-mail message, I've used \dots\ = to indicate the
omission.}
I realize that the result is over-long and = repetitive, but I
don't have time to check what's already been done, or = to think how to cut
the material down and re-organise it.

In my case, most \lq\lq wishes'' are just particular = cases of a general
wish \lq\lq that \LaTeX\ would make it easy to = produce documents that
conform to the conventions that are usual in = traditional publishing'',
since most of the end-users who tell me \lq\lq I = don't like the way \LaTeX\
does this'' are, I think, really saying \lq\lq I'd = just like \LaTeX\ to do
things like normal publishers do them'' (either = because they want to pass
the result on to a publisher, or simply because = traditional conventions
\lq\lq look right'' to them).

I've generally tried to determine \lq\lq traditional = publishing practice''
by consulting the manuals to which a publisher's = copy-editors, designers,
and typesetting staff might refer.  I assume = that the {\it Chicago Manual
of Style} \cite{chicago-82}, Butcher's {\it = Copy-editing},
\cite{butcher-81}, McLean's {\it Manual of = Typography} \cite{mclean-80},
Williamson's {\it Methods of Book Design} = \cite{williamson-83} and Hart's
{\it Rules} \cite{hart-83} are representative of such = manuals.  Since I
assume that \LaTeX\ is, and always will be, intended = for producing formally
structured documents rather than for implementing = \lq\lq grid-based
designs'', I presume that it is unrealistic to try to = support more than a
selection of the features described in books (such as = \cite{miles-87} and
\cite{white-88}) that are aimed at the \lq\lq design = for desktop
publishing'' market.  However, the classes of = document that are of interest
to the Text Encoding Initiative \cite{tei-90} seem = similar to the classes
for which \LaTeX\ is intended, so I assume that the = Initiative's views on
structure are relevant (although their objectives are = broader than just
typesetting).

I'm very aware that it's easier \lq\lq to wish'' than = \lq\lq to grant
wishes''.


------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.459E9A4C--