References: <97120513432713@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk>
            <97120513432713@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Message-ID:  <3.0.1.32.19971206082925.00aa3a50@pop.tiac.net>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
In-Reply-To:  <473-Fri05Dec1997135950+0000-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk>
Date:         Sat, 6 Dec 1997 08:29:25 -0500
From: "Y&Y, Inc." <support@YANDY.COM>
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: private macros and journal .cls
Status: R

At 01:59 PM 97/12/05 +0000, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:

> > It seems to me that it is much better for a few people to work hard at
> > LaTeX to HTML conversion, or whatever is required, rather than making
> > each author of each paper do a lot of unnecessary work.

>Sure, thats why I said it *shouldnt* be an author constraint. People
>who convert LaTeX should do so properly, or say up front that they
>cannot do it, rather than unreasonably constraining authors.

>latex2html is a red herring, of course. in practise, i don't think any
>large scale publisher goes this route.

In fact, most online journals are in Acrobat PDF format.  And many of
them are not done using TeX, and many of the ones done with TeX
do not use the fonts any of us use (instead using Adobe Math Pi,
MonoType math fonts etc.).  Those not done using TeX don't look
as fine to the trained eye, but they don't seem to care.  Occassionally
it pays to look up from the grind stone and smell the roses :-).

Regards, Berthold.