Message-Id: <9305041409.AA22466@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 13:19:22 BST
From: Mike Piff <M.Piff@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


%>From: Cameron Smith <cameron@SYMCOM.MATH.UIUC.EDU>
%>Subject: Re: documentstyle option versions
%>
%>
%>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.
%>

I think that you have just denied one of the main reasons for using TeX
rather than its lesser cousins. If you produce a conference proceedings
in LaTeX, you don't expect your publisher to print the bible instead. I
think there is an important distinction between form=spacing and
content=actual printing symbols to be made here. LaTeX can have a free-
for-all over form, but certainly not over content.


%>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.
%>

There are possibly several different things going on here:
(a) Publisher's macros change spacing, chapter startup, etc. Acceptable.
(b) Publisher changes text style, but always substitutes like
    characters for like. Less acceptable, eg, in quotations which no
    longer stand out. Possibly the publisher has not thought long and
    hard enough about all the possibilities that could occur when he
    \let\it=\rm.
(c) Publisher incompetently substitutes Times roman, say, for computer
    modern roman, and does not substitute like characters for like.
    Totally unacceptable, you should't need to have to proof read for
    this sort of bungling.


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%% Dr M J Piff                      %%  e-mail:
%% Department of Pure Mathematics   %%
%% University of Sheffield          %%  M.Piff@sheffield.ac.uk
%% Hicks Building                   %%  PM1MJP@derwent.shef.ac.uk
%% Hounsfield Road                  %%  %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%% SHEFFIELD S3 7RH                 %%  Telephone: (0742) 824431
%% England                          %%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%