X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1015" "Mon" "6" "October" "1997" "15:31:21" "+0100" "Sebastian Rahtz" "s.rahtz@ELSEVIER.CO.UK" nil "26" "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 QAA09412; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 16:33:22 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from lsv1.listserv.gmd.de by listserv.gmd.de (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <9.04B98BD5@listserv.gmd.de>; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 16:33:19 +0200 Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 208871 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 16:33:11 +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 QAA06537 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 16:33:02 +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 PAA11748 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 15:32:12 +0100 (BST) Received: from SRAHTZ (actually host srahtz.elsevier.co.uk) by snowdon.elsevier.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Mon, 6 Oct 1997 15:32:06 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <3305-Mon06Oct1997113441+0100-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk> X-Mailer: VM 6.33 under Emacs 19.34.6 Message-ID: <1291-Mon06Oct1997153121+0100-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk> Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 15:31:21 +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: 2353 > Ah, but I fear your opinion here doesn't count:-) I know you'd rather i am an author too... :-} (and I know that getting the front matter right is just trivial compared to the rest of the paper) > 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 don't mind people lazily omitting fields, but what I *do* mind is them writing: \author{ ...\footnotemark{\ddag}} ..... \footnotetext{\ddag}{Corresponding author, current address The Moon} ie i can cope with missing information, but not with visual formatting masquerading as logical markup so allow people to leave stuff out, but try and stop them inserting horrors into what they do write. BAN THE \thanks COMMAND!!!!! Sebastian