X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1459" "Mon" "14" "February" "1994" "00:18:06" "GMT" "Sebastian Rahtz" "spqr@FTP.TEX.AC.UK" "<199402141529.AA25817@mail.cs.tu-berlin.de>" "31" "Re: collective documents [was exam papers]" "^Date:" nil nil "2" "1994021400:18:06" "collective documents [was exam papers]" nil "<9402131918.AA21659@ftp.tex.ac.uk>"]) Return-Path: Received: from sc.ZIB-Berlin.DE (mailserv) by dagobert.ZIB-Berlin.DE (4.1/SMI-4.0/24.6.93) id AA01505; Mon, 14 Feb 94 16:31:19 +0100 Received: from mail.cs.tu-berlin.de by sc.ZIB-Berlin.DE (4.1/SMI-4.0-sc/03.06.93) id AA02883; Mon, 14 Feb 94 16:29:17 +0100 Received: from tubvm.cs.tu-berlin.de by mail.cs.tu-berlin.de with SMTP id AA25817 (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4(mail.m4[1.12]) for <@MAIL.CS.TU-BERLIN.DE:Schoepf@SC.ZIB-BERLIN.DE>); Mon, 14 Feb 1994 16:29:14 +0100 Message-Id: <199402141529.AA25817@mail.cs.tu-berlin.de> Received: from TUBVM.CS.TU-BERLIN.DE by tubvm.cs.tu-berlin.de (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 5543; Mon, 14 Feb 94 16:28:58 +0200 Received: from VM.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (NJE origin MAILER@DHDURZ1) by TUBVM.CS.TU-BERLIN.DE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 5542; Mon, 14 Feb 1994 16:28:56 +0200 Received: from VM.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (NJE origin LISTSERV@DHDURZ1) by VM.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 0006; Mon, 14 Feb 1994 16:28:21 +0000 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project In-Reply-To: <9402131918.AA21659@ftp.tex.ac.uk> Date: Mon, 14 Feb 1994 00:18:06 GMT From: Sebastian Rahtz Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L Subject: Re: collective documents [was exam papers] Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 1554 bbeeton writes: > ron whitney and i *have* hacked something together that allows > multiple articles to be run together in a continuous stream, and it's > not exactly trivial. and i doubt it will work with latex2e, and it i'd be rather surprsied if it didnt, actually. i doubt you are hitting the problems areas of compatibility there > probably won't work again with latex3. i think that it would be > reasonable to hope for this feature to be available as a standard > option in latex3, which is supposed to give designers more flexibility > and not require them to create loathsome and non-portable hacks. but i think we still confused two issues: a) we need a new standard document class for `collective document', agreed b) but does it need new facilities? my argument is that we could write this class now in LaTeX 2.09/LaTeX2e, without needing new tools. we havent, because its difficult, but is it impossible? what real new features do we want LaTeX3 to add to make it easier? maybe we are talking on different wavelengths: my style/class handles stuff like per-paper bibliographies, inserting author names into TOC, worrying about numbering and all that. ARe you talking entirely more complex problems? Sorry to pursue this, but I am not sure whether Frank wants feedback now on what standard classes should be be available, as opposed to facilities. I'd rank `journal' quite high on the list of needed standard classes. Sebastian