Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19443.9EDBA364@nummer-3.proteosys>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:44:29 +0100 Return-Path: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.9EDBA364" 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: {1} Size options (and \documentstyle syntax) Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1992 17:13:13 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: Sender: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" To: "Multiple recipients of" Reply-To: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 609 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.9EDBA364 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This a comment about the message from R. Bernstein = (rocky@watson.ibm.com) about "Why isn't \documentstyle[10pt]{article} allowed?". GOALS Is the following goal attainable? "Style-files that will deliver good/valid designs: * for all permutations of 9pt, 10pt, 11pt, 12pt with/without = twocolumn * on A4 (or similar) paper without any crop marks that indicate the size of paper for which the design is intended." I'm not sure that it is. 9pt and 10pt single-column designs won't = usually be appropriate for A4 paper. So what should the style-file do: put crop-marks to indicate the paper-size for which the single-column design = is intended, or switch to twocolumn and give an appropriate design for A4? I suspect that the \documentstyle[pointsize]{mainstyle} syntax may make people = over-confident that they'll get something reasonable out when in fact the goal is not attainable (or could only be attained in a messy way, e.g. by trying to build intelligence into mainstyle.sty about when to put crop marks and/or when to switch to double-column). PUBLISHERS' AUTHOR-SUPPORT KIT The conventions for electronic submission of manuscripts to "real publishers" seem in their infancy, so there isn't much evidence to go on about what is appropriate. From what evidence I can see (a browse = through the style-files in the Aston archive, etc.), there may be a useful distinction between: * the target design: - at the recent UK meeting on "book and journal publishing", Geeti = Granger of Wiley said that they have about 6 designs that they usually use - I presume that the 9-point ISO style-file at Aston gives the target design (i.e., the ISO house-style design) - the AMS has style-files for in-house use when producing = journals/books - the UK Institute of Physics has style-files for in-house use when producing journals on B5 - US Physics people have style-files for use when producing their publications with 10pt main text - Formal Aspects of Computing is typeset with non-CMR fonts. - I think Nico once mentioned people printing "too big", ready for photoreduction. In such cases, the "too big" design would be = LaTeX's target. * the design used by the author for proofreading: - I don't know what Wiley's authors would use for proofreading (but they'd probably find laserprinted 10pt a bit hard going) - I presume that the 10-point ISO style-file at Aston gives a design that is easier to read when laserprinted (for proofreading) than the final ISO house-style will be - the AMS supplies "preprint styles" for authors to use while = developing their papers. - the UK Institute of Physics supplies a preprint style-file that gives output scaled up for A4 (i.e., they go \magnification=3D1200, so as to give a page-width of "width of journal page" x 1.2). - US Physics people have preprint styles that use 12pt for the main = text - there's a style-file at Aston that "Formal Aspects of Computing" = authors can use while drafting their papers. It uses the CMR fonts. [Maybe proofreading is the wrong word. That's what was done when = people had to check typeset galleys against the typewritten original. Maybe we're talking about styles that will suit the author while drafting the text, and/or will suit the publisher while copy-editing.] Thus, there seems to be a "target style", which the publisher will use = for final typesetting, plus an author/copy-editor support style which will = be used on a laserprinter, with A4 paper, for scrutiny prior to final typesetting. A syntax that had things like \documentstyle[draft]{targetdesign} or \documentstyle[copy-edit]{targetdesign} or \documentstyle[preprint]{targetdesign} might correspond better to such realities (where the effect of the style-option would be to scale the target design up for A4 while leaving line-endings and page-breaks largely unchanged). DO-IT-YOURSELF-ERS That leaves us hackers who produce our own documents (or have to support computer-users who want to produce documents). Either these will be for publication (in which case the stuff above = about "publishers' support kit" applies) or they will be in-house = publications, such as reports, theses, etc. Even for in-house publications, I doubt whether the goal of producing style-files that will deliver good/valid designs * for all permutations of 9pt, 10pt, 11pt, 12pt with/without = twocolumn * on A4 (or similar) paper without any crop marks that indicate the size of paper for which the design is intended is attainable. For A4 paper, one might have 11pt and 12pt variations of = a single-column design, or 9pt and 10pt variations of a double-column = design, but generally I'd guess that amateurs have a target design in mind just = like professional publishers. (People submitting files to archives have gone through the motions of following the 2.09 precedents by supplying 10pt, 11pt and 12pt style-options. E.g., there's uct10.sty to go with ucthesis.sty. But I'd be surprised if \documentstyle[10pt]{ucthesis}, \documentstyle[11pt]{uctthesis} and \documentstyle[12pt]{ucthesis} all give theses that look like "well-designed books".) CONCLUSION Although it might be worth tidying up the way the LaTeX reads .sty option files internally, I'd be inclined to give less emphasis in LaTeX 3.0 to the \documentstyle[pointsize]{...} = user-interface than it had at LaTeX 2.09. It might be better to think in terms of something like \documentstyle[draft]{targetdesign} while providing sufficient variety of targetdesign.sty files to give hackers somewhere = to start (e.g., 11pt or 12pt single-column for A4, 10pt single-column for = B5, 9pt or 10pt double-column for A4). More radically, do we need to ensure a clear distinction between: * the structure that a style-file supports (i.e., in SGML terms, the document-type declaration) * the physical layout given to that structure by a particular = house-style. Things like \documentstyle{book} lead to misunderstandings because = "book" is * both a definition of the structures supported by the "book DTD" * and a particular typographic design for typesetting those structures. Do we need to move to something like \mapping{structure}{design}[design-options] where one might conceive of things like * \mapping{BK-1}{AMSmonograph}[draft], for when the AMS wants to take something that has a BK-1 structure (as defined by the AAP's = SGML-ers), wants the final design to be in "AMS monograph" house-style, but = wants to provide an "author-support kit" that enables the author to simulate = the "AMS monograph" on their laserprinter with CMR fonts and A4 paper. * \mapping{BK-1}{AMSmonograph}[copy-edit], for the next stage, where = the copy-editor wants some scribbling space * \mapping{BK-1}{tugboat-article} being immediately recognised as a mismatch between structure and design * \mapping{BK-1}{default}, to produce output on A4 paper just to permit publisher-independent formatting (e.g., for e-mailing stuff around = the world), but without any pretence that it is suitable for any binding and publishing (and no "design options", i.e., main text in [say] 11 point just to give "something OK on A4" without any support for 9, 10 or 12 point [or twocolumn] variations). * publishers having the option of arranging that \mapping{BK-1}{targetdesign}[draft] has the same effect as \mapping{BK-1}{default} if they don't want to be bothered providing their authors with their own publisher-dependent preprint styles * \mapping{book}{book}[11pt], to give "the LaTeX book structure" = typeset according to "the LaTeX book design" with the 11pt "design option". --------- David Rhead d.rhead@uk.ac.nottingham.ccc.vme ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.9EDBA364 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable {1} Size options (and \documentstyle syntax)

This a comment about the message from R. Bernstein = (rocky@watson.ibm.com)
about "Why isn't \documentstyle[10pt]{article} = allowed?".

          &nbs= p;            = ;            = GOALS

Is the following goal attainable?
  "Style-files that will deliver good/valid = designs:
   * for all permutations of 9pt, 10pt, = 11pt, 12pt with/without twocolumn
   * on A4 (or similar) paper without any = crop marks that indicate
     the size of paper for which = the design is intended."

I'm not sure that it is.  9pt and 10pt = single-column designs won't usually
be appropriate for A4 paper.  So what should the = style-file do: put
crop-marks to indicate the paper-size for which the = single-column design is
intended, or switch to twocolumn and give an = appropriate design for A4?

I suspect that the
\documentstyle[pointsize]{mainstyle} syntax may make = people over-confident
that they'll get something reasonable out when in = fact the goal is not
attainable (or could only be attained in a messy way, = e.g. by trying to
build intelligence into mainstyle.sty about when to = put crop marks
and/or when to switch to double-column).

          &nbs= p;           = PUBLISHERS' AUTHOR-SUPPORT KIT

The conventions for electronic submission of = manuscripts to "real
publishers" seem in their infancy, so there = isn't much evidence to go on
about what is appropriate.  From what evidence I = can see (a browse through
the style-files in the Aston archive, etc.), there = may be a useful
distinction between:
*  the target design:
   - at the recent UK meeting on "book = and journal publishing", Geeti Granger
     of Wiley said that they have = about 6 designs that they usually use
   - I presume that the 9-point ISO = style-file at Aston gives the target
     design (i.e., the ISO = house-style design)
   - the AMS has style-files for in-house = use when producing journals/books
   - the UK Institute of Physics has = style-files for in-house use when
     producing journals on = B5
   - US Physics people have style-files for = use when producing their
     publications with 10pt main = text
   - Formal Aspects of Computing is typeset = with non-CMR fonts.
   - I think Nico once mentioned people = printing "too big", ready for
     photoreduction. In such = cases, the "too big" design would be LaTeX's
     target.
*  the design used by the author for = proofreading:
   - I don't know what Wiley's authors = would use for proofreading (but
     they'd probably find = laserprinted 10pt a bit hard going)
   - I presume that the 10-point ISO = style-file at Aston gives a
     design that is easier to = read when laserprinted (for proofreading)
     than the final ISO = house-style will be
   - the AMS supplies "preprint = styles" for authors to use while developing
     their papers.
   - the UK Institute of Physics supplies a = preprint style-file that
     gives output scaled up for = A4 (i.e., they go \magnification=3D1200,
     so as to give a page-width = of "width of journal page" x 1.2).
   - US Physics people have preprint styles = that use 12pt for the main text
   - there's a style-file at Aston that = "Formal Aspects of Computing" authors
     can use while drafting their = papers.  It uses the CMR fonts.
   [Maybe proofreading is the wrong = word.  That's what was done when people
   had to check typeset galleys against the = typewritten original.  Maybe
   we're talking about styles that will = suit the author while drafting
   the text, and/or will suit the publisher = while copy-editing.]

Thus, there seems to be a "target style", = which the publisher will use for
final typesetting, plus an author/copy-editor support = style which will be
used on a laserprinter, with A4 paper, for scrutiny = prior to final
typesetting.  A syntax that had things = like
   = \documentstyle[draft]{targetdesign}
or
   = \documentstyle[copy-edit]{targetdesign}
or
   = \documentstyle[preprint]{targetdesign}
might correspond better to such realities (where the = effect of the
style-option would be to scale the target design up = for A4 while leaving
line-endings and page-breaks largely = unchanged).

          &nbs= p;            = ;     DO-IT-YOURSELF-ERS

That leaves us hackers who produce our own documents = (or have to support
computer-users who want to produce documents).

Either these will be for publication (in which case = the stuff above about
"publishers' support kit" applies) or they = will be in-house publications,
such as reports, theses, etc.  Even for in-house = publications, I doubt
whether the goal of producing style-files that will = deliver good/valid
designs
   * for all permutations of 9pt, 10pt, = 11pt, 12pt with/without twocolumn
   * on A4 (or similar) paper without any = crop marks that indicate
     the size of paper for which = the design is intended
is attainable.  For A4 paper, one might have = 11pt and 12pt variations of a
single-column design, or 9pt and 10pt variations of a = double-column design,
but generally I'd guess that amateurs have a target = design in mind just like
professional publishers.  (People submitting = files to archives have gone
through the motions of following the 2.09 precedents = by supplying 10pt,
11pt and 12pt style-options.  E.g., there's = uct10.sty to go with
ucthesis.sty.  But I'd be surprised if = \documentstyle[10pt]{ucthesis},
\documentstyle[11pt]{uctthesis} and = \documentstyle[12pt]{ucthesis} all
give theses that look like "well-designed = books".)

          &nbs= p;            = ;         CONCLUSION

Although it might be worth tidying up the way the = LaTeX reads
<pointsize>.sty option files internally, I'd be = inclined to give less
emphasis in LaTeX 3.0 to the = \documentstyle[pointsize]{...} user-interface
than it had at LaTeX 2.09.  It might be better = to think in terms of
something like \documentstyle[draft]{targetdesign} = while providing
sufficient variety of targetdesign.sty files to give = hackers somewhere to
start (e.g., 11pt or 12pt single-column for A4, 10pt = single-column for B5,
9pt or 10pt double-column for A4).

More radically, do we need to ensure a clear = distinction between:
*  the structure that a style-file supports = (i.e., in SGML terms, the
   document-type declaration)
*  the physical layout given to that structure = by a particular house-style.
Things like \documentstyle{book} lead to = misunderstandings because "book" is
* both a definition of the structures supported by = the "book DTD"
* and a particular typographic design for typesetting = those structures.

Do we need to move to something like
   = \mapping{structure}{design}[design-options]
where one might conceive of things like
*  \mapping{BK-1}{AMSmonograph}[draft], for when = the AMS wants to
   take something that has a BK-1 structure = (as defined by the AAP's SGML-ers),
   wants the final design to be in = "AMS monograph" house-style, but wants to
   provide an "author-support = kit" that enables the author to simulate the
   "AMS monograph" on their = laserprinter with CMR fonts and A4 paper.
*  \mapping{BK-1}{AMSmonograph}[copy-edit], for = the next stage, where the
   copy-editor wants some scribbling = space
*  \mapping{BK-1}{tugboat-article} being = immediately recognised as a
   mismatch between structure and = design
*  \mapping{BK-1}{default}, to produce output on = A4 paper just to permit
   publisher-independent formatting (e.g., = for e-mailing stuff around the
   world), but without any pretence that it = is suitable for any binding
   and publishing (and no "design = options", i.e., main text in [say]
   11 point just to give "something OK = on A4" without any support for
   9, 10 or 12 point [or twocolumn] = variations).
*  publishers having the option of arranging = that
   \mapping{BK-1}{targetdesign}[draft] has = the same effect as
   \mapping{BK-1}{default} if they don't = want to be bothered providing
   their authors with their own = publisher-dependent preprint styles
*  \mapping{book}{book}[11pt], to give "the = LaTeX book structure" typeset
   according to "the LaTeX book = design" with the 11pt "design option".

          &nbs= p;            = ;          ---------

David Rhead
d.rhead@uk.ac.nottingham.ccc.vme

------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.9EDBA364--