X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1096" "Mon" "6" "October" "1997" "15:07:55" "+0100" "David Carlisle" "david@DCARLISLE.DEMON.CO.UK" nil "27" "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 QAA08257; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 16:08:22 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from lsv1.listserv.gmd.de by listserv.gmd.de (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <2.8730306C@listserv.gmd.de>; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 16:08:20 +0200 Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 208852 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 16:08:15 +0200 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (punt-2b.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.6]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA04745 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 16:08:13 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from dcarlisle.demon.co.uk ([194.222.187.145]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1222492; 6 Oct 97 15:00 BST Received: by dcarlisle.demon.co.uk id m0xIDpD-000OWEC (Debian Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #2); Mon, 6 Oct 1997 15:07:55 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project In-Reply-To: <3305-Mon06Oct1997113441+0100-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk> (message from Sebastian Rahtz on Mon, 6 Oct 1997 11:34:41 +0100) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 15:07:55 +0100 From: David Carlisle 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: 2352 > my immediate reaction is that the pain of doing this is relatively > trivial, compared to the advantages. Ah, but I fear your opinion here doesn't count:-) I know you'd rather have the authors validate their manuscripts against a DTD by SP or some such, but the question is whether authors will do it... If a `preprint' class for this markup *enforces* a suitably rich markup by generating errors if insufficent information is provided then it may not be too popular with authors. If on the otherhand it takes a more permissive approach, for instance not complaining too much as long as some kind of address is given in either affiliation or address commands, and just using whichever is available, then the useability of manuscripts prepared as preprints with production classes that do *require* certain fields would be much reduced. I think that for a first approach I should aim to be `strict' but I'd be interested to know what are the views of potential authors (as opposed to publishers) > I would claim we have to distinguish: > .. Thanks, that is a useful classification. David