Message-Id: <9305041221.AA21785@sc.zib-berlin.dbp.de>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@vm.urz.Uni-Heidelberg.de>
Date:         Tue, 4 May 93 13:04:19 BST
From: K.Lyle@SHEFFIELD.AC.UK
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


> Date:          Mon, 3 May 93 16:01:30 -0500
> Reply-to:      Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.EARN>
> From:          Cameron Smith <cameron@SYMCOM.MATH.UIUC.EDU>
> Subject:       Re: documentstyle option versions
> To:            Multiple Recipients of <LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.EARN>

>
> 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

Computers and computer-aided typesetting are wonderful, but no system
I know of obviates the need for proofreading. The author should have
read the typescript carefully before it goes to the
publisher/typesetter/whoever, so that s/he has confidence in the
*.tex file. Then at the final stage, someone has to check that it has
come out as intended, reading against copy to check for omissions
etc., cross-references, running heads, page breaks .... Ideally this
last read should be undertaken by someone coming fresh to the
material, which by this time will be too familiar to the authors and
editors involved.

The path from author's brain to printed page is a long one, and
disaster can strike at any stage along the way!

As a freelance copyeditor and proofreader I have a vested interest, of
course, but I think that anyone with much experience of the publishing
process will agree.


======================================================================
Kathleen M. Lyle

Technical Editor, Applied Probability Trust, Hicks Building,
The University, Sheffield S3 7RH, UK

Phone +742 824269     Fax +742 729782

======================================================================