Message-Id: <199402102306.AA06296@mail.cs.tu-berlin.de>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET>
In-Reply-To:  <9402092026.AA03443@ftp.tex.ac.uk>
Date:         Thu, 10 Feb 1994 22:59:42 GMT
From: Sebastian Rahtz <spqr@FTP.TEX.AC.UK>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET>
To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L <LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: collective documents [was exam papers]
Status: R

bbeeton writes:
 >
 > david rhead:
 >     I guess that there are some structures that LaTeX 2.09/2e doesn't
 >     handle particularly well.  E.g.
 >     *  conference-proceedings
 >     *  issue of a journal, made up of a lot of individual contributions
 > indeed there is a desire -- at least *i* desire (as editor of tugboat) --
 > that such collective documents be handled in a more amiable manner than
 > is possible at present.  i haven't time to assume responsibility for the
is this really a LaTeX3 issue? I have edited (let me count) 5 volumes
of conference proceedings using LaTeX (not counting TUG93), and 3
archaeological reports with a complicated multi-author setup, and found
all the tools I needed. If you mean, `we want a standard class for
this job' then yes, i'd agree, but I don't find a need for new features
to handle these situations.

Sebastian

PS no i havent got a cute class to do the proceedings, i hack each one
as it comes along :-}