Message-Id: <9305040920.AA20758@sc.zib-berlin.dbp.de>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@vm.urz.Uni-Heidelberg.de>
Date:         Mon, 3 May 93 16:01:30 -0500
From: Cameron Smith <cameron@SYMCOM.MATH.UIUC.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: documentstyle option versions
Status: R


Michael Downes writes:
> Here's a hypothesis: If you submit a document to a publisher in .tex
> form rather than .dvi form, either the publisher must be able to
> replicate your LaTeX system exactly (TeX version, LaTeX version+date,
> versions of all documentstyle options), or the document must be
> re-proofread word for word after it has been run through the
> publisher's in-house processing.

> The intent of my postings is not to claim that the above hypothesis is
> correct (maybe it is, maybe it isn't) but to provoke discussion of
> ways to make the interchange process more failsafe.

Since I went on at some length yesterday, I'll be brief today.
I think the hypothesis is true.  The document must be re-proofread.
(In fact, I think it must be proofread even if the publisher *can*
replicate the author's setup.)  I have never thought otherwise,
and I'm surprised to learn that other people do.

Michael's specific examples of things that might slip through include
all the \cite's being omitted, or all (somethings -- minuses?) being
changed to \Gamma's.  I'm amazed that anyone might have so much
confidence in the portability of LaTeX source that their proofing
would be so cursory as to overlook this.

Again, this is IMHO -- I don't claim to have any theorems on this subject.
--Cameron Smith