Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19443.A20EC0A4@nummer-3.proteosys>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:44:34 +0100 Return-Path: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.A20EC0A4" 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} Structures to be supported Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1992 16:22:08 +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: 627 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.A20EC0A4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable You may remember my mail of 8th March about "size options and alternatives". I made a passing reference to "whatever structures LaTeX supports". Here are some suggestions about how one might be more specific about "structures supported": * Look critically at the AAP BK-1, ART-1 and SER-1. [I think it is these that appear in Appendix B of "Electronic Manuscript = Preparation and Markup", ANSI/NISO Z39.59-1988, Transaction Publishers, 1991. ISBN 0-88738-945-7. BK-1 is for book, monograph, textbook, = conference proceedings, technical report, thesis, dissertation. ART-1 is for article or feature. SER-1 is for serial or conference proceedings (again).] * For overall structure, BK-1, ART-1 and SER-1 can probably be used = as a convenient "off the shelf" analysis of structure, although one = might wish to: * make a few amendments to take account of other gurus such as Chicago Manual of Style. In BK-1, for example: - for "real publishers", what about half-title? Would it be generated from title? - presumably "List of illustrations" and "List of Tables" should be supported (as in Chicago, but not in BK-1) - BK-1 says that appendices are BEFORE "back matter", whereas Chicago says that appendices are PART OF "back = matter". (One could fudge it by having appendices and then "OTHER back matter".) * (optionally?) not bother with analysis to the same depth as the AAP. I assume that LaTeX would not have a \packagingmethod = command, for example. (A publisher who was taking a genuine SGML BK-1 book and converting it for typesetting by LaTeX, might have software that converted SGML stuff to analogous LaTeX stuff where there was a 1-1 correspondence, but converted low-level = things like to embedded TeX typesetting commands.) The explicit support for a SER-1 having an ART-1 embedded might = appeal to people editing conference-proceedings and journals. * For lower-level features, I'm not sure that the AAP analysis of structure is sufficiently detailed: * I don't think that they've thought through their treatment of citations and reference-lists (e.g., I don't see the structure = of ISO 690, or any other relevant guru, reflected in the AAP stuff) * AAP mentions "artwork" and "figures", but not captions, legends = and credit-lines (see Chicago, or Hart's Rules) * they mention tables, but its not clear: - what their analysis of the structure of "associated notes" is (although Chicago gives a structure) - how one deals with "table fitting" problems (too long, too wide, etc.). Hence, it looks as though one could: * base an analysis of higher-level structures on BK-1, ART-1 and = SER-1 (which would save "re-inventing the wheel") with a few amendments * follow other gurus for lower-level structures. * call the result bk-L, art-L and ser-L. The result would not be a direct correspondence with BK-1, ART-1 and = SER-1. Hence any style-files etc., should NOT have names that imply "we = implement BK-1, etc.", e.g., bk-L would be OK, but not bk-1. This would leave other structures unsupported (e.g., strict = correspondence with BK-1, ART-1 and SER-1, and "legal articles"). Any publisher = wanting LaTeX support for these could use (as yet completely mythical) bk-L, = art-L and ser-L as a starting point for hacking. David Rhead JANET: d.rhead@uk.ac.nottingham.ccc.vme ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.A20EC0A4 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable {1} Structures to be supported

You may remember my mail of 8th March about "size = options and
alternatives".  I made a passing reference = to "whatever structures LaTeX
supports".

Here are some suggestions about how one might be more = specific about
"structures supported":
*    Look critically at the AAP BK-1, = ART-1 and SER-1.  [I think it is
     these that appear in = Appendix B of "Electronic Manuscript Preparation
     and Markup", ANSI/NISO = Z39.59-1988, Transaction Publishers, 1991.
     ISBN 0-88738-945-7.  = BK-1 is for book, monograph, textbook, conference
     proceedings, technical = report, thesis, dissertation.  ART-1 is for
     article or feature.  = SER-1 is for serial or conference proceedings
     (again).]
*    For overall structure, BK-1, = ART-1 and SER-1 can probably be used as a
     convenient "off the = shelf" analysis of structure, although one might
     wish to:
     *  make a few = amendments to take account of other gurus such as
        Chicago = Manual of Style.  In BK-1, for example:
        - for = "real publishers", what about half-title?  Would it = be
          = generated from title?
        - = presumably "List of illustrations" and "List of = Tables" should
          be = supported (as in Chicago, but not in BK-1)
        - BK-1 = says that appendices are BEFORE "back matter",
          whereas = Chicago says that appendices are PART OF "back matter".
          (One = could fudge it by having appendices and then "OTHER back
          = matter".)
     *  (optionally?) not = bother with analysis to the same depth as the
        AAP.  = I assume that LaTeX would not have a \packagingmethod command,
        for = example. (A publisher who was taking a genuine SGML
        BK-1 book = and converting it for typesetting by LaTeX, might have
        software = that converted SGML stuff to analogous LaTeX stuff
        where = there was a 1-1 correspondence, but converted low-level things
        like = <pkg> to embedded TeX typesetting commands.)
     The explicit support for a = SER-1 having an ART-1 embedded might appeal
     to people editing = conference-proceedings and journals.
*    For lower-level features, I'm not = sure that the AAP analysis of
     structure is sufficiently = detailed:
     *  I don't think that = they've thought through their treatment of
        citations = and reference-lists (e.g., I don't see the structure of ISO
        690, or = any other relevant guru, reflected in the AAP stuff)
     *  AAP mentions = "artwork" and "figures", but not captions, legends = and
        = credit-lines (see Chicago, or Hart's Rules)
     *  they mention tables, = but its not clear:
        - what = their analysis of the structure of "associated notes" = is
          = (although Chicago gives a structure)
        - how one = deals with "table fitting" problems (too long, too
          wide, = etc.).

Hence, it looks as though one could:
*    base an analysis of higher-level = structures on BK-1, ART-1 and SER-1
     (which would save = "re-inventing the wheel") with a few amendments
*    follow other gurus for = lower-level structures.
*    call the result bk-L, art-L and = ser-L.
The result would not be a direct correspondence with = BK-1, ART-1 and SER-1.
Hence any style-files etc., should NOT have names = that imply "we implement
BK-1, etc.", e.g., bk-L would be OK, but not = bk-1.

This would leave other structures unsupported (e.g., = strict correspondence
with BK-1, ART-1 and SER-1, and "legal = articles").  Any publisher wanting
LaTeX support for these could use (as yet completely = mythical) bk-L, art-L
and ser-L as a starting point for hacking.


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

------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.A20EC0A4--