Message-Id: <9303072157.AA02694@sc.zib-berlin.dbp.de>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@vm.urz.Uni-Heidelberg.de>
Date:         Sun, 7 Mar 93 22:47:47 CET
From: Don Hosek <DHOSEK@HMCVAX.CLAREMONT.EDU>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@vm.urz.Uni-Heidelberg.de>
To: Multiple Recipients of <LATEX-L@vm.urz.Uni-Heidelberg.de>
Subject:      Re:  Classes of document styles
Status: R


-i'm a bit unclear as to why a monograph is more like an article
-than a book.  (the monographs published by ams are more likely
-to be book-like; they do, of course, have the contents, lists of
-whatever, and index as indicated by don.)

The impression I'd gotten from thhe AMS author's guide was that
amsart was the style to be used when preparing a monograph for
the AMS. Is this incorrect? In any event, I'm not wedded to the
term, but to the idea that an article and a <whatever> are
distinguished by the idea that an article is part of a journal
while a <whatever> stands alone. A paper, for instance, would
fall into the <whatever> category. This is perhaps a distinction
of roughly the same relevance as that between book and report,
but I'm a bit unclear what the current status is on style classes
anyway.

-perhaps what don means is a long article (in a journal) that does
-include its own table of contents?  this occurs relatively
-infrequently, in my experience, but often enough to require a
-suitable style.

-dh