Message-ID:  <97101411341764@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Date:         Tue, 14 Oct 1997 11:34:17 GMT
From: Phillip Helbig <helbig@MULTIVAC.JB.MAN.AC.UK>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L
              <LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Subject:      Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros
Status: R

> I wholeheartedly agree with Sebastian.  In addition, I feel that the
> BibTeX algorithm is seriously slanted towards European languages (more
> precisely, languages whose impact was felt in the USA prints at the
> time BibTeX was being designed).  I suspect it's inadequate to `world-
> wide publishing' -- is Oren listening to this list? -- or can someone
> else comment on whether the eagerly-awaited BibTeX v1.0 is going to
> extend the algorithm anywhere?

Even if BibTeX could be made to work, a more straightforward syntax
would make things clearer for all involved.  An important issue is
whether anyone has any reason NOT to go for keywords (in all aspects of
this journal macros business), considering that they do go against the
LaTeX grain in some sense.

We've been concentrating on front matter, but another aspect is how to
write things like the abbreviation for et cetera.  In italics or not?
etc or etc. (with a .)?  That's four combinations.  What about color/
colour and so on?  Portability would require commands for these, \etc
and so on, rather trivially defined by the corresponding .cls.

> I would hope that the APS _is_ at least monitoring the discussion, but
> if they are, I would suggest they're keeping remarkably quiet.

May be someone can say `hello?'

> However, being as how it's now more than two years since I was first
> told that a RevTeX2e was imminent, I've rather given up waiting for
> its actual appearance...  Maybe they believe that the revtex.cls that
> Patrick Daly mentioned _is_ RevTeX2e?

Could be.  Many normal users have LaTeX2e on their system, and if it
works, sort of think they're `using' LaTeX2e, whereas it might just be a
wrapper for 2.09 or even compatibility mode.  As I've said before, there
is really no reason NOT to go to LaTeX2e, but there might be a lack of
awareness in the larger user community as to why they should do so.

I've been monitoring the discussion, and when it dies down a bit will
try to put everything together into a proposal more refined than my
original rough-and-ready version.  It would be nice to have several
suggestions for the full template (as opposed to just commenting on
specific aspects, though that is valuable in its own right, of course)
which should be clearly indicated as such.


--
Phillip Helbig                          Email ... helbig@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk
Nuffield Radio Astronomy Laboratories   Tel. ..... +44 1477 571 321 (ext. 297)
Jodrell Bank                            Fax ................. +44 1477 571 618
Macclesfield                            Telex ................. 36149 JODREL G
UK-Cheshire SK11 9DL                    Web .... http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~pjh/