Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19443.A6088854@nummer-3.proteosys>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:44:41 +0100 Return-Path: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.A6088854" x-vm-v5-data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil t 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: Structures to be supported Date: Sat, 4 Apr 1992 17:44:24 +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: 665 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.A6088854 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable % These notes are along the same lines as Wessel Kraaij's comments, as % copied from comp.text.tex by Rainer. % Please feel free to replace ... \documentstyle[11pt]{article} \sloppy % ... by a command to map a "2.09 article structure" into whatever % design you like which is compatible with that structure. \newcommand{\BibTeX}{{\rm B\kern-.05em{\sc i\kern-.025em b}\kern-.08em T\kern-.1667em\lower.7ex\hbox{E}\kern-.125emX}} \begin{document} \title{Structures to be supported} \author{David Rhead} \date{April 1992} \maketitle \tableofcontents \section{Motivation} \subsection{Dual role of 2.09 style files} In \LaTeX\ 2.09, ``style files'' confuse 2 roles: \begin{itemize} \item definition of a structure. (I think I've heard this given as a justification for the designs: ``the designs don't matter, because the style-files are just there to define what structures are supported''.) \item mapping the structure into a design. \end{itemize} For example: \begin{itemize} \item {\tt article.sty} and {\tt xarticle.sty} seem to map the same structure (the ``\LaTeX\ 2.09 analysis of the structure of an {\tt article}'') into different designs \item the command \verb+\documentstyle{siam}+ seems to map ``{\sc = siam}'s analysis of the structure of an article'' into ``{\sc siam}'s = design for an article''. (If so, then the roles of = \verb+\documentstyle[11pt]{siam}+ and \verb+\documentstyle[12pt]{siam}+ are unclear. Are they = intended as ``preprint styles'', for an author to use while a paper is being drafted?) \item the commands \verb+\documentstyle[onecolumn,10pt]{iso}+ and \verb+\documentstyle[twocolumn,9pt]{iso}+ seem to map ``the = structure of an ISO standard'' into ``two designs for ISO standards''. \end{itemize} Changing from \verb+\documentstyle{article}+ to \verb+\documentstyle{xarticle}+ will work (i.e., give a document with = the same structure but a different design), but changing from \verb+\documentstyle{article}+ to \verb+\documentstyle{siam}+ or to \verb+\documentstyle{iso}+ won't work. The analysis that was done for version 2.09 is mostly implicit in {\tt = sty} files, rather than being available explicitly. Subsequent providers of {\tt sty} files have generally followed the same practice (although some provide supplementary documentation). Thus, a user who just wants = his/her current structure laid out in a different design may end up reading lots = of archived {\tt sty} file code to see whether an alternative {\tt sty} = file supports the structure they are currently using. \subsection{Practical difficulties at 2.09} Someone attempting to produce a book/thesis with \LaTeX\ 2.09 has to change various defaults: \begin{itemize} \item they will want their preliminary pages numbered in roman, but will want to switch back to arabic at the start of their main text. They may need a \verb+\setcounter+ to start the roman sequence at = the right place. \item they will probably want units such as ``acknowledgements'' and ``references'' to appear in their ``table of contents''. They will be using \verb+\chapter*+ for such units (to get headings that look appropriate), so will have to use \verb+\addcontentsline+ to get the units mentioned in the ``table of contents''. \item page-selection can be a problem, since \verb+\count0+ doesn't distinguish between roman and arabic. \end{itemize} People producing ``an issue of a journal'', or a conference-proceedings, may have additional problems: \begin{itemize} \item if they treat the work as {\tt book} \cite[p.\ 23]{lamport}, they will be faced with trying to get authors' names, affiliations, = etc., typeset consistently at the start of each chapter. \item if they leave the work as a series of {\tt article}s, they will be = faced with ensuring that numbering (of pages, etc.) follows on. \end{itemize} I think that these problems arise because the analysis of ``document structure'' for the \LaTeX\ 2.09 ``standard styles'' is inappropriate: \begin{itemize} \item the concepts of ``front matter'' and ``back matter'' are well known in publications about book design, etc., but aren't = supported by the 2.09 ``standard styles'' \item an ``issue of a journal'', and a conference-proceedings, have = structures of their own (which are different from the structure of an = ordinary book). \end{itemize} \subsection{Suggestion for 3.0} I think that there would be advantages in: \begin{enumerate} \item keeping a clear distinction between ``the structure supported'' and ``the design into which the structure is mapped'', so that the end-user will known when they can/cannot change design by changing just one line of their {\tt tex} file. \item associated with (1), thinking in terms of ``software that maps a structure into a design'', rather than ``style file'' which = confuses ``structure supported'' with ``design into which the structure is mapped'' \item analyzing in more depth the structure of the types of documents to = be supported. Then, for example, the end-user will be able to just = say ``this is front matter'', and so have details such as roman/arabic numbering, heading style, and ``table of contents'' entries taken = care of automatically in accordance with the relevant design (or house-style). \end{enumerate} \section{Structures to be supported} Various gurus \cite{chicago,aap,majour,white,bs-thesis,bs-report,tei} = give analyses of the structures of the document-classes for which people use \LaTeX\ 2.09. Although, there may be differences between the analyses offered by different gurus, I think that it would be better for the = project to consult the gurus, rather than to ignore them (since otherwise the project will waste time re-doing the work already done by the gurus). \subsection{First proposition} It is easier to select the ``good bits'' from off-the-shelf analyses = than to start from nothing. \subsection{Second proposition} For overall structure, particularly ``good bits'' are to be found in the {\it Chicago Manual of Style} \cite[pages 4,5]{chicago} and in the SGML = DTDs published by the Association of American Publishers \cite[appendix = B]{aap}. \subsection{Notes about AAP analysis} \subsubsection{Three basic structures} Broadly, the AAP analysis defines three basic structures: \begin{description} \item[BK-1] book/monograph/textbook, conference proceedings, technical = report, thesis/dissertation \item[ART-1] article, feature \item[SER-1] serial,\footnote{% I think they mean ``an issue of a serial''. See section \ref{not-a-serial}.} conference-proceedings. (Articles are embedded within a serial without any modifications.) \end{description} Thus, although the \LaTeX\ 2.09 and AAP analyses both define 3 main = structures, the boundaries are drawn differently: \begin{itemize} \item the AAP regards reports and books as having the same basic BK-1 structure (unlike \LaTeX\ 2.09, which has two distinct ``standard styles'', {\tt report} and {\tt book}, the main difference being = that {\tt book} isn't allowed to have an abstract) \item whereas the \LaTeX\ 2.09 manual suggests \cite[p.\ 23]{lamport} = that ``it is easy to include an article as a chapter in a report or = book'', the AAP defines a special structure, SER-1, for multi-author works made up of separate articles. \end{itemize} \subsubsection{Borderline cases} Some types of document may lie on the borderline between two AAP categories. For example, a long report might be divided into units = called chapters and be appropriately classified as BK-1, while a short report might be divided into units called sections and be more akin to ART-1. (Compare \cite{aap}, which envisages that technical reports will have = BK-1 structure, with \cite{bs-report} which envisages that technical reports will be divided into sections.) At worst, cases that cross borderlines might need two mappings. In the report example, they might be (1) a mapping of BK-1 structure to a = report design, and (2) a mapping of ART-1 structure to a report design. (This = is no worse than the situation with the \LaTeX\ 2.09 ``standard styles'', = which also envisage that {\tt report} is made up of chapters.) Thus, adoption = of AAP classification would not cause insuperable difficulties. \subsubsection{Advantages of AAP analysis} Paying serious attention to the AAP analysis would have various = advantages: \begin{itemize} \item the analysis is well-known \item it covers the types of documents that current \LaTeX-users = generally want to produce \item it generally (but not always) gives analysis to the depth that \LaTeX\ 3.0 might need \item other gurus cite it (if only to disagree with it) \item it embodies knowledge about publishing practice that the average \LaTeX-er doesn't have \item it is finite. The project would not be attempting to analyse all possible documents, but would be concentrating on the = structures that are most commonly required. \item support for AAP-like structures might attract ``real publishers'' to \LaTeX \item {\it it exists now} (unlike, for example, the European journal-publishers' work \cite{majour}, which is still in = progress). \end{itemize} \subsubsection{Disadvantages of AAP analysis} \label{not-a-serial} The AAP analysis is not suitable in all respects as a model of what \LaTeX\ 3.0 (and associated software) should do: \begin{itemize} \item The analysis may go deeper in some areas than is required for = \LaTeX\ 3.0. (If something with the ``look and feel'' of SGML is required, one = might as well use SGML.) \item On the other hand, the analysis doesn't go deep enough in other = areas. For example, the AAP analysis is no better than the \LaTeX\ 2.09 = analysis for: \begin{itemize} \item citations and reference-lists \cite{iso-690}; \item captions, legends and credit-lines \cite[ch.\ 11]{chicago}; \item notes to tables \cite[ch.\ 12]{chicago}. \end{itemize} Other gurus' analyses would have to be used in such areas. \item At a recent SGML meeting \cite{exeter8}, the AAP standard was described as too Anglo-centric. Hence the European = journal-publishers' work \cite{majour} was criticised as too AAP-influenced. \item ``Serial'' is usually used (e.g., by librarians) to describe a publication that could potentially continue indefinitely (e.g., = all the issues of a journal, including those not yet published). Therefore SER-1 may be a poor choice of name for a structure that would represent ``a single issue of a series'' or a ``one-off conference proceeedings''. MULTI-1 might have been a better name for such multi-author (or multi-article) works. \end{itemize} \subsubsection{Attitude to AAP analysis} An analysis based on that given by the AAP (minus a few details, plus a = few other details which could be taken from \cite{chicago} and other places) might give a reasonable compromise between: \begin{itemize} \item ``re-inventing the wheel'' \item blindly obeying something (AAP structure) that hasn't been thought = through in all respects. \end{itemize} \subsection{Example} For example, if some compromise was made between the Chicago analysis = and the AAP analysis, one might envisage a user preparing a file of the = form: \begin{verbatim} .. \begin{frontmatter} \frontelement{Foreword} ... \frontelement{Preface} ... \frontelement{Acknowledgements} ... \frontelement{Dedication} ... \frontelement{Abstract} ... \end{frontmatter} \begin{bodymatter} \chapter{...} ... \end{bodymatter} \begin{appendices} \appendix{...} ... \end{appendices} \begin{backmatter} % short for "other back matter" \backelement{Glossary} ... \backelement{Notes} ... \end{backmatter} \end{verbatim} % Perhaps \oneappendix{...} could be substituted for % \begin{appendices} % \appendix{...} % ... % \end{appendices} % if there is only one appendix. \subsubsection*{Note} The above example assumes that, for \LaTeX\ purposes: \begin{itemize} \item it will generally be sufficient to think in terms of ``front = matter elements'' and ``back matter elements'' \item it will not be appropriate to go for complete analogy with the = AAP's SGML DTD. Thus, one would not expect typical \LaTeX\ 3.0 software = to define environments like \verb+\acknowledgements+: if \LaTeX\ 3,0 = gets used as a back-end for an SGML system, the AAP's \verb++ = would get converted to \verb+\frontelement{Acknowledgements}+. = (However, if any elements required special treatment, particular environments = could be defined for them, as is done in \LaTeX\ 2.09 with {\tt = abstract}.) \end{itemize} \subsection{Bonuses from using structures influenced by Chicago/AAP} \subsubsection{Conference proceedings} A document with structure based on SER-1 will naturally support ``a reference-list at the end of each chapter'' plus the option of a = composite bibliography at the end of the document (for which one sometimes sees in requests in electronic digests from editors of conference = proceedings). Because the structure is appropriate, there should be less conflict than = if one is (for example) mis-using the 2.09 {\tt book} structure. One shouldn't end up trying to have {\tt thebibliography} at both 2.09 ``section'' level and at ``chapter'' level, because the ``references at = end of article'' and ``bibliography at end of complete work'' units would = have different definitions. For \BibTeX, one could envisage a scheme = involving perhaps {\tt article1.bbl}, \dots\ , {\tt article}$N${\tt .bbl}, {\tt backmatter.bbl}. \subsubsection{Page selection} Such an analysis would lead naturally to schemes for using the = \verb+\count+s sensibly, so as to support: \begin{itemize} \item distinction between roman and arabic numbered pages (i.e., front matter and main text) \item selection of ``all the front matter'', a whole chapter, a whole = appendix, or ``all the (non-appendix) back matter''. \end{itemize} For example, one might have: \begin{center} \begin{footnotesize} \begin{tabular}{lllll} \hline\hline Major division & Minor = divisions&\verb+\count0+&\verb+\count1+&\verb+\count2+\\ \hline\hline Front matter & & page-number & {\tt -1} & {\tt 0} = \\ \hline Main text & chapters & page-number & chapter-number & {\tt = 0} \\ & & & {\tt 1, 2, ... }& = \\ \hline Back matter: & appendices &page-number&appendix number& = {\tt 1}\\ appendices & & & {\tt 1, 2, ... }& = \\ \hline Back matter: & glossary & page-number&{\tt -2} & {\tt 0} = \\ other units & bibliography & & \\ & index, etc. & & \\ \hline\hline \end{tabular}\end{footnotesize}\end{center} \subsubsection{Generally} Generally, if a correct analysis of structure is made, practical details will tend to fall into place nicely, rather than needing messy {\it ad = hoc} circumventions. \section{Modularity} \subsection{Analysis in general} Although I've suggested that a Chicago/AAP analysis might provide a = suitable basis for ``structures to be supported by \LaTeX\ 3.0'': \begin{itemize} \item any ``\LaTeX\ 3.0 project'' selection of ``the good bits'' is unlikely to be perfect \item some better analysis may come along, and some successor to the ``\LaTeX\ 3.0 project'' may want to support that analysis rather = than one derived from the suggestions given here \item people may have to produce ``structure to design'' mappings for structures other than the 3 ``modified AAP'' ones (e.g., legal articles, ISO standards, SGML DTDs other than the 3 AAP ones) \item people may produce ``structure to design'' mappings for enhancements of the 3 ``modified AAP'' ones (e.g., a book that contains plates and maps, if they are to be numbered separately from other illustrations). \end{itemize} It seems desirable that such possibilities should be borne in mind when = any software is being written. \subsection{Structure supported by mapping software} I think that mapping software (i.e., whatever we call the successors to 2.09 ``style files'') should make clear the structure that is supported, for example: \begin{itemize} \item by software checks \item because the mapping software starts with a comment that defines = the structure it supports. \end{itemize} Then end-users will know (or find out in a friendly way) whether or not they can simply ``change design by changing one line of the {\tt tex} = file''. For example: \begin{itemize} \item a thesis and a Wiley book might have the same structure, so a one-line change to the {\tt tex} file should lead to a change = from one design to another (with no change to the structure) \item papers in different physics journals will probably have the same structure, so a one-line change to the {\tt tex} file should lead to a change = from one journal's design to another's \item ISO standards have their own structure. Someone who tries to = apply typesetting software that is intended for a different structure = (e.g., an AAP-based structure) should get a sensible error message. \end{itemize} \begin{thebibliography}{00} \addcontentsline{toc}{section}{References} \bibitem{lamport} {\sc Leslie Lamport.} {\it LaTeX: a document preparation system.} Addison-Wesley, 1986. \bibitem{chicago} {\it Chicago manual of style.} 13th edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982. \bibitem{aap} {\it Electronic manuscript preparation and markup: ANSI/NISO = Z39.59-1988.} New Brunswick: Transaction publishers, 1991. ISBN 0-88738-945-7. \bibitem{majour} {\it DTD for article headers.} Amsterdam: European workgroup on SGML, 1991. \bibitem{white} {\sc Jan V. White.} {\it Graphic design for the electronic age.} Watson-Guptill, 1988. \bibitem{bs-thesis} {\it Presentation of theses and dissertations.} BS 4821. British Standards Institution, 1990. \bibitem{bs-report} {\it Presentation of research and development reports.} BS 4811. British Standards Institution, 1972. \bibitem{tei} {\sc C. M. Sperberg-McQueen and Lou Burnard.} {\it Guidelines for the encoding and interchange of = machine-readable texts.} Draft version 1.1. Oxford, Chicago: Text Encoding Initiative, 1990. \bibitem{exeter8} {\sc Michael Popham.} {\it Report on inaugural meeting of UK chapter of SGML Users' Group.} Report number 8, SGML project, = Exeter University, 1992. \bibitem{iso-690} {\it Documentation --- bibliographic references --- content, form = and structure.} ISO 690. International Organization for Standardization, 1987. \end{thebibliography} \end{document} ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.A6088854 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Structures to be supported

%  These notes are along the same lines as Wessel = Kraaij's comments, as
%  copied from comp.text.tex by Rainer.

%  Please feel free to replace ...
   \documentstyle[11pt]{article}
   \sloppy
%  ... by a command to map a "2.09 article = structure" into whatever
%  design you like which is compatible with that = structure.

\newcommand{\BibTeX}{{\rm B\kern-.05em{\sc = i\kern-.025em b}\kern-.08em
      = T\kern-.1667em\lower.7ex\hbox{E}\kern-.125emX}}

\begin{document}

\title{Structures to be supported}
\author{David Rhead}
\date{April 1992}
\maketitle

\tableofcontents

\section{Motivation}

\subsection{Dual role of 2.09 style files}

In \LaTeX\ 2.09, ``style files'' confuse 2 = roles:
\begin{itemize}
\item definition of a structure.
      (I think I've heard = this given as a justification for the designs:
      ``the designs don't = matter, because the style-files are just there
      to define what = structures are supported''.)
\item mapping the structure into a design.
\end{itemize}
For example:
\begin{itemize}
\item {\tt article.sty} and {\tt xarticle.sty} seem = to map the same
      structure (the = ``\LaTeX\ 2.09 analysis of the structure of an {\tt
      article}'') into = different designs
\item the command \verb+\documentstyle{siam}+ seems = to map ``{\sc siam}'s
      analysis of the = structure of an article'' into ``{\sc siam}'s design for
      an article''.  = (If so, then the roles of \verb+\documentstyle[11pt]{siam}+
      and = \verb+\documentstyle[12pt]{siam}+ are unclear.  Are they = intended
      as ``preprint = styles'', for an author to use while a paper is
      being drafted?)
\item the commands = \verb+\documentstyle[onecolumn,10pt]{iso}+ and
      = \verb+\documentstyle[twocolumn,9pt]{iso}+ seem to map ``the = structure
      of an ISO standard'' = into ``two designs for ISO standards''.
\end{itemize}
Changing from \verb+\documentstyle{article}+ = to
\verb+\documentstyle{xarticle}+ will work (i.e., give = a document with the
same structure but a different design), but changing = from
\verb+\documentstyle{article}+ to = \verb+\documentstyle{siam}+ or to
\verb+\documentstyle{iso}+ won't work.

The analysis that was done for version 2.09 is mostly = implicit in {\tt sty}
files, rather than being available explicitly.  = Subsequent providers of
{\tt sty} files have generally followed the same = practice (although some
provide supplementary documentation).  Thus, a = user who just wants his/her
current structure laid out in a different design may = end up reading lots of
archived {\tt sty} file code to see whether an = alternative {\tt sty} file
supports the structure they are currently = using.

\subsection{Practical difficulties at 2.09}

Someone attempting to produce a book/thesis with = \LaTeX\ 2.09
has to change various defaults:
\begin{itemize}
\item they will want their preliminary pages numbered = in roman, but will
      want to switch back to = arabic at the start of their main text.
      They may need a = \verb+\setcounter+ to start the roman sequence at the
      right place.
\item they will probably want units such as = ``acknowledgements'' and
      ``references'' to = appear in their ``table of contents''. They will
      be using = \verb+\chapter*+ for such units (to get headings that
      look appropriate), so = will have to use \verb+\addcontentsline+
      to get the units = mentioned in the ``table of contents''.
\item page-selection can be a problem, since = \verb+\count0+
      doesn't distinguish = between roman and arabic.
\end{itemize}

People producing ``an issue of a journal'', or a = conference-proceedings,
may have additional problems:
\begin{itemize}
\item if they treat the work as {\tt book} \cite[p.\ = 23]{lamport}, they
      will be faced with = trying to get authors' names, affiliations, etc.,
      typeset consistently = at the start of each chapter.
\item if they leave the work as a series of {\tt = article}s, they will be faced
      with ensuring that = numbering (of pages, etc.) follows on.
\end{itemize}

I think that these problems arise because the analysis = of ``document
structure'' for the \LaTeX\ 2.09 ``standard styles'' = is inappropriate:
\begin{itemize}
\item the concepts of ``front matter'' and ``back = matter'' are well
      known in publications = about book design, etc., but aren't supported
      by the 2.09 ``standard = styles''
\item an ``issue of a journal'', and a = conference-proceedings, have structures
      of their own (which = are different from the structure of an ordinary book).
\end{itemize}

\subsection{Suggestion for 3.0}

I think that there would be advantages in:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
     keeping a clear distinction = between ``the structure supported'' and
     ``the design into which the = structure is mapped'', so that the
     end-user will known when = they can/cannot change design by changing
     just one line of their {\tt = tex} file.
\item
     associated with (1), = thinking in terms of ``software that maps a
     structure into a design'', = rather than ``style file'' which confuses
     ``structure supported'' with = ``design into which the structure is
     mapped''
\item
     analyzing in more depth the = structure of the types of documents to be
     supported.  Then, for = example, the end-user will be able to just say
     ``this is front matter'', = and so have details such as roman/arabic
     numbering, heading style, = and ``table of contents'' entries taken care
     of automatically in = accordance with the relevant design (or
     house-style).
\end{enumerate}

\section{Structures to be supported}

Various gurus = \cite{chicago,aap,majour,white,bs-thesis,bs-report,tei} give
analyses of the structures of the document-classes = for which people use
\LaTeX\ 2.09.  Although, there may be = differences between the analyses
offered by different gurus, I think that it would be = better for the project
to consult the gurus, rather than to ignore them = (since otherwise the
project will waste time re-doing the work already = done by the gurus).

\subsection{First proposition}

It is easier to select the ``good bits'' from = off-the-shelf analyses than
to start from nothing.

\subsection{Second proposition}

For overall structure, particularly ``good bits'' are = to be found in the
{\it Chicago Manual of Style} \cite[pages = 4,5]{chicago} and in the SGML DTDs
published by the Association of American Publishers = \cite[appendix B]{aap}.

\subsection{Notes about AAP analysis}

\subsubsection{Three basic structures}

Broadly, the AAP analysis defines three basic = structures:
\begin{description}
\item[BK-1] book/monograph/textbook, conference = proceedings, technical report,
      = thesis/dissertation
\item[ART-1] article, feature
\item[SER-1] serial,\footnote{%
      I think they mean ``an = issue of a serial''.  See section
      = \ref{not-a-serial}.}
      = conference-proceedings.  (Articles are embedded within
      a serial without any = modifications.)
\end{description}

Thus, although the \LaTeX\ 2.09 and AAP analyses both = define 3 main structures,
the boundaries are drawn differently:
\begin{itemize}
\item
     the AAP regards reports and = books as having the same basic BK-1
     structure (unlike \LaTeX\ = 2.09, which has two distinct ``standard
     styles'', {\tt report} and = {\tt book}, the main difference being that
     {\tt book} isn't allowed to = have an abstract)
\item
     whereas the \LaTeX\ 2.09 = manual suggests \cite[p.\ 23]{lamport} that
     ``it is easy to include an = article as a chapter in a report or book'',
     the AAP defines a special = structure, SER-1, for multi-author works
     made up of separate = articles.
\end{itemize}

\subsubsection{Borderline cases}

Some types of document may lie on the borderline = between two AAP
categories.  For example, a long report might be = divided into units called
chapters and be appropriately classified as BK-1, = while a short report
might be divided into units called sections and be = more akin to ART-1.
(Compare \cite{aap}, which envisages that technical = reports will have BK-1
structure, with \cite{bs-report} which envisages that = technical reports
will be divided into sections.)

At worst, cases that cross borderlines might need two = mappings.  In the
report example, they might be (1) a mapping of BK-1 = structure to a report
design, and (2) a mapping of ART-1 structure to a = report design.  (This is no
worse than the situation with the \LaTeX\ 2.09 = ``standard styles'', which
also envisage that {\tt report} is made up of = chapters.) Thus, adoption of
AAP classification would not cause insuperable = difficulties.

\subsubsection{Advantages of AAP analysis}

Paying serious attention to the AAP analysis would = have various advantages:
\begin{itemize}
\item the analysis is well-known
\item it covers the types of documents that current = \LaTeX-users generally
      want to produce
\item it generally (but not always) gives analysis to = the depth that
      \LaTeX\ 3.0 might = need
\item other gurus cite it (if only to disagree with = it)
\item it embodies knowledge about publishing practice = that the
      average \LaTeX-er = doesn't have
\item it is finite.  The project would not be = attempting to analyse
      all possible = documents, but would be concentrating on the structures
      that are most commonly = required.
\item support for AAP-like structures might attract = ``real publishers''
      to \LaTeX
\item {\it it exists now} (unlike, for example, the = European
      journal-publishers' = work \cite{majour}, which is still in progress).
\end{itemize}

\subsubsection{Disadvantages of AAP analysis}
\label{not-a-serial}

The AAP analysis is not suitable in all respects as a = model of what
\LaTeX\ 3.0 (and associated software) should = do:
\begin{itemize}
\item The analysis may go deeper in some areas than = is required for \LaTeX\ 3.0.
      (If something with the = ``look and feel'' of SGML is required, one might
      as well use = SGML.)
\item On the other hand, the analysis doesn't go deep = enough in other areas.
      For example, the AAP = analysis is no better than the \LaTeX\ 2.09 analysis
      for:
      \begin{itemize}
      \item citations and = reference-lists \cite{iso-690};
      \item captions, = legends and credit-lines \cite[ch.\ 11]{chicago};
      \item notes to tables = \cite[ch.\ 12]{chicago}.
      \end{itemize}
      Other gurus' analyses = would have to be used in such areas.
\item At a recent SGML meeting \cite{exeter8}, the = AAP standard was
      described as too = Anglo-centric.  Hence the European journal-publishers'
      work \cite{majour} was = criticised as too AAP-influenced.
\item ``Serial'' is usually used (e.g., by = librarians) to describe a
      publication that could = potentially continue indefinitely (e.g., all
      the issues of a = journal, including those not yet published).
      Therefore SER-1 may be = a poor choice of name for a structure that
      would represent ``a = single issue of a series'' or a ``one-off
      conference = proceeedings''.  MULTI-1 might have been a better name
      for such multi-author = (or multi-article) works.
\end{itemize}

\subsubsection{Attitude to AAP analysis}

An analysis based on that given by the AAP (minus a = few details, plus a few
other details which could be taken from = \cite{chicago} and other places)
might give a reasonable compromise between:
\begin{itemize}
\item ``re-inventing the wheel''
\item blindly obeying something (AAP structure) that = hasn't been thought through
 in all
      respects.
\end{itemize}

\subsection{Example}

For example, if some compromise was made between the = Chicago analysis and
the AAP analysis, one might envisage a user preparing = a file of the form:
\begin{verbatim}
..
\begin{frontmatter}
   \frontelement{Foreword}
   ...
   \frontelement{Preface}
   ...
   \frontelement{Acknowledgements}
   ...
   \frontelement{Dedication}
   ...
   \frontelement{Abstract}
   ...
\end{frontmatter}
\begin{bodymatter}
   \chapter{...}
   ...
\end{bodymatter}
\begin{appendices}
   \appendix{...}
   ...
\end{appendices}
\begin{backmatter}  %  short for = "other back matter"
   \backelement{Glossary}
   ...
   \backelement{Notes}
   ...
\end{backmatter}
\end{verbatim}
%  Perhaps \oneappendix{...} could be = substituted for
%     \begin{appendices}
%     \appendix{...}
%     ...
%     \end{appendices}
%  if there is only one appendix.

\subsubsection*{Note}

The above example assumes that, for \LaTeX\ = purposes:
\begin{itemize}
\item it will generally be sufficient to think in = terms of ``front matter
      elements'' and ``back = matter elements''
\item it will not be appropriate to go for complete = analogy with the AAP's
      SGML DTD.  Thus, = one would not expect typical \LaTeX\ 3.0 software to
      define environments = like \verb+\acknowledgements+: if \LaTeX\ 3,0 gets
      used as a back-end for = an SGML system, the AAP's \verb+<ack>+ would
      get converted to = \verb+\frontelement{Acknowledgements}+.  (However, if
      any elements required = special treatment, particular environments could
      be defined for them, = as is done in \LaTeX\ 2.09 with {\tt abstract}.)
\end{itemize}

\subsection{Bonuses from using structures influenced = by Chicago/AAP}

\subsubsection{Conference proceedings}

A document with structure based on SER-1 will = naturally support ``a
reference-list at the end of each chapter'' plus the = option of a composite
bibliography at the end of the document (for which = one sometimes sees
in requests in electronic digests from editors of = conference proceedings).

Because the structure is appropriate, there should be = less conflict than if
one is (for example) mis-using the 2.09 {\tt book} = structure.  One
shouldn't end up trying to have {\tt thebibliography} = at both 2.09
``section'' level and at ``chapter'' level, because = the ``references at end
of article'' and ``bibliography at end of complete = work'' units would have
different definitions.  For \BibTeX, one could = envisage a scheme involving
perhaps {\tt article1.bbl}, \dots\ , {\tt = article}$N${\tt .bbl}, {\tt
backmatter.bbl}.

\subsubsection{Page selection}

Such an analysis would lead naturally to schemes for = using the \verb+\count+s
sensibly, so as to support:
\begin{itemize}
\item distinction between roman and arabic numbered = pages (i.e., front
      matter and main = text)
\item selection of ``all the front matter'', a whole = chapter, a whole appendix,
      or ``all the = (non-appendix) back matter''.
\end{itemize}
For example, one might have:
\begin{center}
\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{tabular}{lllll}
\hline\hline
Major division & Minor = divisions&\verb+\count0+&\verb+\count1+&\verb+\count2+\\
\hline\hline
Front matter   = &           &n= bsp;    & page-number  & {\tt = -1}    &  {\tt 0}  \\
\hline
Main text      = &   chapters     & = page-number  & chapter-number  & {\tt 0} \\
          &nbs= p;    = &           &n= bsp;    = &           &n= bsp;  & {\tt 1, 2, ... = }&         \\
\hline
Back = matter:           = & appendices    &page-number&appendix = number& {\tt 1}\\
appendices         =      = &           &n= bsp;   = &           & = {\tt 1, 2, ... }& \\
\hline
Back matter:   & = glossary          & = page-number&{\tt -2}   &  {\tt 0}  \\
other units    & = bibliography      = &            = &            = \\
          &nbs= p;    & index, = etc.       = &            = &            = \\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}\end{footnotesize}\end{center}

\subsubsection{Generally}

Generally, if a correct analysis of structure is made, = practical details
will tend to fall into place nicely, rather than = needing messy {\it ad hoc}
circumventions.

\section{Modularity}

\subsection{Analysis in general}

Although I've suggested that a Chicago/AAP analysis = might provide a suitable
basis for ``structures to be supported by \LaTeX\ = 3.0'':
\begin{itemize}
\item any ``\LaTeX\ 3.0 project'' selection of ``the = good bits''
      is unlikely to be = perfect
\item some better analysis may come along, and some = successor to the
      ``\LaTeX\ 3.0 = project'' may want to support that analysis rather than
      one derived from the = suggestions given here
\item people may have to produce ``structure to = design'' mappings for
      structures other than = the 3 ``modified AAP'' ones (e.g., legal
      articles, ISO = standards, SGML DTDs other than the 3 AAP ones)
\item people may produce ``structure to design'' = mappings for
      enhancements of the 3 = ``modified AAP'' ones (e.g., a book
      that contains = plates  and maps, if they are to be numbered
      separately from other = illustrations).
\end{itemize}
It seems desirable that such possibilities should be = borne in mind when any
software is being written.

\subsection{Structure supported by mapping = software}

I think that mapping software (i.e., whatever we call = the successors to
2.09 ``style files'') should make clear the structure = that is supported,
for example:
\begin{itemize}
\item by software checks
\item because the mapping software starts with a = comment that defines the
      structure it = supports.
\end{itemize}
Then end-users will know (or find out in a friendly = way) whether or not
they can simply ``change design by changing one line = of the {\tt tex} file''.

For example:
\begin{itemize}
\item a thesis and a Wiley book might have the same = structure, so
      a one-line change to = the {\tt tex} file should lead to a change from one
      design to another = (with no change to the structure)
\item papers in different physics journals will = probably have the same
 structure, so
      a one-line change to = the {\tt tex} file should lead to a change from one
      journal's design to = another's
\item ISO standards have their own structure.  = Someone who tries to apply
      typesetting software = that is intended for a different structure (e.g., an
      AAP-based structure) = should get a sensible error message.
\end{itemize}



\begin{thebibliography}{00}
\addcontentsline{toc}{section}{References}
\bibitem{lamport}
     {\sc Leslie Lamport.} {\it = LaTeX:  a document preparation system.}
     Addison-Wesley, 1986.
\bibitem{chicago}
     {\it Chicago manual of = style.}
     13th edition.
     Chicago: University of = Chicago Press, 1982.
\bibitem{aap}
     {\it Electronic manuscript = preparation and markup: ANSI/NISO Z39.59-1988.}
     New Brunswick: Transaction = publishers, 1991.
     ISBN 0-88738-945-7.
\bibitem{majour}
     {\it DTD for article = headers.}
     Amsterdam: European = workgroup on SGML, 1991.
\bibitem{white}
     {\sc Jan V. White.}
     {\it Graphic design for the = electronic age.}
     Watson-Guptill, 1988.
\bibitem{bs-thesis}
     {\it Presentation of theses = and dissertations.}
     BS 4821. British Standards = Institution, 1990.
\bibitem{bs-report}
     {\it Presentation of = research and development reports.}
     BS 4811.  British = Standards Institution, 1972.
\bibitem{tei}
     {\sc C. M. Sperberg-McQueen = and Lou Burnard.}
     {\it Guidelines for the = encoding and interchange of machine-readable
     texts.}
     Draft version 1.1.
     Oxford, Chicago: Text = Encoding Initiative, 1990.
\bibitem{exeter8}
     {\sc Michael Popham.} {\it = Report on inaugural meeting of
     UK chapter of SGML Users' = Group.} Report number 8, SGML project, Exeter
     University, 1992.
\bibitem{iso-690}
     {\it Documentation --- = bibliographic references --- content, form and
     structure.}
     ISO 690.  International = Organization for Standardization, 1987.
\end{thebibliography}

\end{document}

------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.A6088854--