Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19443.A2E01D9C@nummer-3.proteosys>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:44:35 +0100 Return-Path: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.A2E01D9C" 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} {1} 2.09 style-files in archives Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1992 16:59:29 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "Rolf Lindgren" Sender: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" To: "Multiple recipients of" Reply-To: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 637 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.A2E01D9C Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable David_Rhead@VME.NOTT.AC.UK writes: > Frank said: > >> Finally during the beta test phase (or even earlier) I think of > >> browsing through all archives and converting the ``most important > >> styles'' into new syntax. > > Some of the stuff in archives gives "bad design" (stuff that "gives > one-inch margins for A4" and "does a double-spaced thesis"). I = wouldn't > have thought that it is worth spending time converting such stuff. = (If > people whose institutions still ask for "double-spaced theses" start > lobbying the relevant committees now, they can get their = institutions' > regulations changed by the time LaTeX 3 comes out. Or are things = worse in > other countries than in the UK?) I've tried. The best sugggestions I can give is to say ``Use WordPerfect 4.2.'' This is a complicated issue. As you are well aware, (of course) LaTeX gives much better output than WordPerfect. But ``quality'' is difficult, because for some purposes, printed matter quality simply isn't the = _best_. Non-proportional, double-spaced WordPerfect 4.2 output is _perfect_ for proofreading. I can't see how you can argue against that. You can spot mistakes much more readily, it's easier to wite comments in, etc. I've heard runors that some of the staff at my college give poorer = grades to Macintosh-written papers because they figure these students must have been using too much of their time on layout and too little on writing. What I've been planning to do is to write a style file `wplike.sty' for proofreading, and accompany it with `truwp.sty' complete with pagebreaks = in the middle of the page, uneven left margin, etc. About citations ... LaTeX 3.0 ougt to provide complete, unabridged, full, no-compromise support for author-date citations. This is the only acceptable citation form in many of the humanities and social sciences. I've heard it = referred to as the `Harvard style.' At least, I want the American Psychological Associations requierements either built-in or readily accomplished. -roffe ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.A2E01D9C Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable {1} {1} 2.09 style-files in archives

David_Rhead@VME.NOTT.AC.UK writes:
 > Frank said:
 > >> Finally during the beta test = phase (or even earlier) I think of
 > >> browsing through all archives and = converting the ``most important
 > >> styles'' into new syntax.
 >
 > Some of the stuff in archives gives = "bad design" (stuff that "gives
 > one-inch margins for A4" and = "does a double-spaced thesis").  I wouldn't
 > have thought that it is worth spending = time converting such stuff.  (If
 > people whose institutions still ask for = "double-spaced theses" start
 > lobbying the relevant committees now, they = can get their institutions'
 > regulations changed by the time LaTeX 3 = comes out.  Or are things worse in
 > other countries than in the UK?)

I've tried.

The best sugggestions I can give is to say ``Use = WordPerfect 4.2.''

This is a complicated issue. As you are well aware, = (of course) LaTeX
gives much better output than WordPerfect. But = ``quality'' is difficult,
because for some purposes, printed matter quality = simply isn't the _best_.

Non-proportional, double-spaced WordPerfect 4.2 output = is _perfect_ for
proofreading. I can't see how you can argue against = that. You can spot
mistakes much more readily, it's easier to wite = comments in, etc.

I've heard runors that some of the staff at my college = give poorer grades
to Macintosh-written papers because they figure these = students must have
been using too much of their time on layout and too = little on writing.

What I've been planning to do is to write a style file = `wplike.sty' for
proofreading, and accompany it with `truwp.sty' = complete with pagebreaks in
the middle of the page, uneven left margin, = etc.

        About = citations ...

LaTeX 3.0 ougt to provide complete, unabridged, full, = no-compromise
support for author-date citations. This is the only = acceptable citation
form in many of the humanities and social sciences. = I've heard it referred
to as the `Harvard style.' At least, I want the = American Psychological
Associations requierements either built-in or readily = accomplished.

-roffe

------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.A2E01D9C--