In-reply-to: <m0sWlyR-0001iAC@csrj.crn.cogs.susx.ac.uk>
Reply-to: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@VM.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Message-id: <805735751.462734.BNB@MATH.AMS.ORG>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Mail-System-Version: <MultiNet-MM(351)+TOPSLIB(158)+PMDF(4.1)@MATH.AMS.ORG>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 1995 11:29:11 -0400
From: bbeeton <BNB@MATH.AMS.ORG>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@VM.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L <LATEX-L@VM.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Subject: Re: 4 small packages of basic 2e code made available
Status: R

>> Do you
>> think that a LaTeX source document which has the line
>> "\documentclass{article}" should ideally compile to an identical dvi
>> file on every LaTeX site?  I don't think so, I think a site should
>> be free to make changes without having to write, say, "xarticle".

with response by alan jeffrey:
    Backing David up on this one...

i'd like to add another vote for consistency.
when ams receives files from authors for inclusion in our journals
or books, if we cannot depend on the author having used the canonical
versions of any required or cited files, we are unable to process
the files and get the same output as the author, resulting in
delays, confusion, hard feelings, and expense.  since the purpose
of asking for electronic input from authors is to speed publication
and simultaneously reduce expenses, any deviation from "standard"
is counterproductive.

if the named styles/packages/etc. are different from what we usually
expect, we are automatically warned that something is different and
are prepared to take different actions.

if there is too great a difference between what is submitted and what
our production routine requires, we still can -- and do -- reject a
submission for not following guidelines.  this is not about to change.
                                                -- bb