Message-Id: <9305041424.AA22525@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 14:51:20 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:          Tue, 4 May 93 13:19:22 BST
> Reply-to:      Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.EARN>
> From:          Mike Piff <M.Piff@SHEFFIELD.AC.UK>
> Subject:       Re: documentstyle option versions
> To:            Multiple Recipients of <LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.EARN>

>
> %>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                          %%
> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
 %%

Mike,

It seems a bit silly to talk to you via a bulletin board when you
are just downstairs, but it's quicker sometimes!

I agree that your last example may be "bungling", but how do you
know it hasn't happened unless you proofread?

Cheers

Kathleen

>

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

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

Phone +742 824269     Fax +742 729782

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