Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19443.A234F51C@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.A234F51C" 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} RE: {1} RE: {1} Size options (and alternatives) Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1992 11:10:00 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "malcolm" Sender: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" To: "Multiple recipients of" Reply-To: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 629 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.A234F51C Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable phil's response prompts me to wonder what literature exists on the `meta' document notions he outlines. i find it hard to believe that these are areas that are totally novel. it would seem reasonable to me that there must be some literature at a theoretical level (rather than, say, pointing to the chicago manual etc). it would therefore be wise to demonstrate or indicate that this has at least been given a passing glance before rejecting it totally. if lxiii is to be broad in its scope -- that is, not simply to make the lives of latexers more straightforward -- it would be good to give it the appearance of fitting into a wider context. or am i just hopelessly out of touch here? malcolm ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.A234F51C Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable {1} RE: {1} RE: {1} Size options (and alternatives)

phil's response prompts me to wonder what
literature exists on the `meta' document = notions
he outlines. i find it hard to believe that
these are areas that are totally novel.
it would seem reasonable to me that there
must be some literature at a theoretical
level (rather than, say, pointing to
the chicago manual etc). it would therefore
be wise to demonstrate or indicate that
this has at least been given a passing
glance before rejecting it totally. if
lxiii is to be broad in its scope -- that
is, not simply to make the lives of
latexers  more straightforward -- it = would
be good to give it the appearance of
fitting into a wider context. or am
i just hopelessly out of touch here?

malcolm

------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.A234F51C--