X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1200" "Thu" "9" "October" "1997" "12:17:16" "+0100" "Sebastian Rahtz" "s.rahtz@ELSEVIER.CO.UK" nil "28" "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 NAA18951; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 13:34:20 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from lsv1.listserv.gmd.de by listserv.gmd.de (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <10.8246D9CD@listserv.gmd.de>; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 13:34:19 +0200 Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 211251 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 13:34:12 +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 NAA04023 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 13:34:05 +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 MAA06268 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 12:32:54 +0100 (BST) Received: from SRAHTZ (actually host srahtz.elsevier.co.uk) by snowdon.elsevier.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Thu, 9 Oct 1997 12:33:19 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <97100911582847@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> X-Mailer: VM 6.33 under Emacs 19.34.6 Message-ID: <1072-Thu09Oct1997121716+0100-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk> Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project In-Reply-To: <97100911582847@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 12:17:16 +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: 2422 > What about just the last names (no initials) in the running head? in that case i would put just surname as shortform, surely? what else is shortform for? TOCs? > Or should there be ONE command for the running head? This might prove > to inflexible, since some will want all author names, some et al. and so yes, journal style should determine whether to derive et al > Add as many as the maximum number required by anyone. What exactly is > `communicated' (as opposed to `received in original form')? god knows! > appropriate here:). The keyword syntax is different from the normal > LaTeX style; by FORCING the author to include everything, compatibility > is assured. If optional arguments (either in [] or via omitted you you allow for {}, so whats the difference? it means we just have the pain of remembering to say \author{}{Foo Bar} > keywords) are used then each individual .cls should complain if keywords > are missing. which, indeed, is a feature; it provides a good interface for journal classes to work with > One must also avoid individual packages adding their own > keywords etc without coordination with others. again, one might regard that as a feature... s