X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1577" "Thu" "2" "October" "1997" "14:22:10" "+0100" "Sebastian Rahtz" "s.rahtz@ELSEVIER.CO.UK" nil "31" "Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros" "^Date:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: from listserv.gmd.de (listserv.gmd.de [192.88.97.1]) by mail.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA08775; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 15:52:08 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from lsv1.listserv.gmd.de by listserv.gmd.de (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <15.435560F2@listserv.gmd.de>; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 15:49:42 +0200 Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 207359 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 15:48:48 +0200 Received: from pillar.elsevier.co.uk (root@pillar.elsevier.co.uk [193.131.222.35]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA04949 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 15:48:42 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from snowdon.elsevier.co.uk (snowdon.elsevier.co.uk [193.131.197.164]) by pillar.elsevier.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA17388 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 14:47:51 +0100 (BST) Received: from SRAHTZ (actually host srahtz.elsevier.co.uk) by snowdon.elsevier.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Thu, 2 Oct 1997 14:47:59 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <97100208475917@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> X-Mailer: VM 6.33 under Emacs 19.34.6 Message-ID: <6960-Thu02Oct1997142210+0100-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk> Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project In-Reply-To: <97100208475917@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 14:22:10 +0100 From: Sebastian Rahtz Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 2332 > Sounds to me like things would be much better if applications stuck to > standard PostScript. Is that too much to ask? What's to stop > applications from abusing the PDF format? PS is a programming language, PDF isnt. hence the difference in the meaning of `standard'. *I* don't know how to abuse PDF, but I certainly know how to write bad PS... > at least initially. The question is, where do we go from here? After > preaching to the choir, we must first get everyone to agree to abide by > a future standard, and then implement that standard, both as quickly as > possible. talk to Michael Downes, David Carlisle, Taco Hoekwater, me, and Patrick, and get copies of their extended markup specification for, eg, frontmatter and citation. then do an analysis and suggest a superset. merge in the markup of all other journal styles you can locate. the best way to achieve change is to make a concrete suggestion of what you want done. just saying `lets talk' gets nowhere. Frank and his gang at 2e need *concrete* specifications, not just a manifesto. > especially with the internals of LaTeX2e. In other words, I would be > happy to contribute as a programmer, but fear that there are others who programming is the least of it. draft a document outlining proposed changes and additions to the standard `article' markup, and discuss the applicaability of that. only when the markup is agreed does anyone need to try and implement it. hacking something, or worrying whether something is technically possible, is entirely the wrong way to start... Sebastian