X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["718" "Fri" "5" "December" "1997" "12:24:04" "+0000" "Sebastian Rahtz" "s.rahtz@ELSEVIER.CO.UK" nil "17" "Re: private macros and journal .cls" "^Date:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: from listserv.gmd.de (listserv.gmd.de [192.88.97.1]) by mail.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA17134; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 13:28:43 +0100 (MET) Received: from lsv1.listserv.gmd.de by listserv.gmd.de (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <3.2A8D58F3@listserv.gmd.de>; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 13:28:41 +0100 Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 246737 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 13:28:31 +0100 Received: from pillar.elsevier.co.uk (root@pillar.elsevier.co.uk [193.131.222.35]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA07549 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 13:28:29 +0100 (MET) 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 MAA01686 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 12:26:31 GMT Received: from SRAHTZ (actually host srahtz.elsevier.co.uk) by snowdon.elsevier.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Fri, 5 Dec 1997 12:27:24 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <199712051207.NAA05947@relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> X-Mailer: VM 6.33 under Emacs 19.34.6 Message-ID: <1416-Fri05Dec1997122404+0000-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk> Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project In-Reply-To: <199712051207.NAA05947@relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 12:24:04 +0000 From: Sebastian Rahtz Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L Subject: Re: private macros and journal .cls Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 2529 > while the author > usually provides an almost completely typeset manuscript, > publishers should _gladly_ accept anything the author is prepared to > deliver instead of imposing specific requirements. the problem is that the author "provides an almost completely *non-portable* typeset manuscript". (my **). sadly, this is not what is needed in the world of electronic publishing. the cost of cleaning up that "typeset manuscript" is really very high. yes, of course publishers screw you. its a bargain, we screw you, you (the academic world) get to play games about tenure based on publication rate. if you drop that absurdity, you can free yourselves from the Faustian pact with the publishers. Sebastian