X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2186" "Fri" "5" "December" "1997" "21:02:12" "GMT" "Phillip Helbig" "helbig@MULTIVAC.JB.MAN.AC.UK" nil "43" "Re: private macros and journal .cls" "^Date:" nil nil "12" nil "private macros and journal .cls" 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 WAA32050; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 22:04:34 +0100 (MET) Received: from lsv1.listserv.gmd.de by listserv.gmd.de (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <14.3B04D1E7@listserv.gmd.de>; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 22:04:33 +0100 Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 246987 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 22:04:25 +0100 Received: from multivac (multivac.jb.man.ac.uk [130.88.24.128]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id WAA02804 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 22:04:22 +0100 (MET) X-VMS-To: SMTP%"LATEX-L@relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de" X-VMS-Cc: HELBIG Message-ID: <97120521021238@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 21:02:12 GMT From: Phillip Helbig 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: 2538 > On Fri, 5 Dec 1997, Phillip Helbig wrote: > > > [...] The > > differences between different journals, not only regarding references, > > and the fierceness with which they say they will reject anything which > > does not conform (though this might not be true in practice) are > > amazing, especially considering how unimportant such things should be. > > They are NOT unimportant. A consistent and aesthetically pleasant look > for a journal, that is unique enough to make it readily recognizable, is > a must. Too bad typography becomes a lost art nowadays... Sorry, I couldn't agree more---I realise I misphrased what I said above. What you said applies to the LOOK of the journal, and this should be as the journal likes it, and indeed the strength of LaTeX, if used properly, allows this presentation to be achieved while the author concentrates on content. However, to produce, in many cases, essentially the same content, it seems absurd to require completely different mechanisms to produce them---here a .cls, there an option to a standard .cls, here this variation on \cite, there another (incompatible) one, some encouraging BibTeX, some discouraging it, and even the author isn't allowed to make this easier on himself by coding such differences as macros which can be redefined to have whatever behaviour is needed, as such own macros are also discouraged if not forbidden. I think that standardised journal macros would allow journals to become more unique---part of the move to standardise journal PRESENTATION, as with some astronomical journals, was probably due to the fact that the authors themselves are forced to code presentation which is properly managed from somewhere else. -- Phillip Helbig Email .......... p.helbig@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/ My opinions are not necessarily those of NRAL or the University of Manchester.