X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["706" "Tue" "31" "August" "1999" "15:47:50" "+0100" "John Palmer (johnp@bcs.org.uk)" "ku15@BCS.ORG.UK" nil "18" "Re: Standard journal macros" "^Date:" nil nil "8" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: from mail.listserv.gmd.de (mail.listserv.gmd.de [192.88.97.5]) by mail.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA17128; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 16:43:07 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mail.listserv.gmd.de (192.88.97.5) by mail.listserv.gmd.de (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <2.5D69FE28@mail.listserv.gmd.de>; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 16:43:06 +0200 Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 444149 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 16:42:45 +0200 Received: from ns.cityscape.co.uk (ns.cityscape.co.uk [194.159.0.5]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA09069 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 16:42:40 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from angel2.cityscape.co.uk ([194.159.0.17]) by ns.cityscape.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11Lp9h-0007X9-00 for LATEX-L@urz.uni-heidelberg.de; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 15:45:01 +0100 Received: from ku15 (helo=localhost) by angel2.cityscape.co.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11LpCR-0004Pi-00 for LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 15:47:51 +0100 X-Sender: ku15@angel2.cityscape.co.uk MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Message-ID: Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.19990831101459.0181aac0@tiac.net> Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 15:47:50 +0100 From: "John Palmer (johnp@bcs.org.uk)" Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L Subject: Re: Standard journal macros Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 3295 I don't want to get into a LaTeX v. SGML controversy. I think that the project of J"org and associates is important because [1] in the short and medium term it is easier to get authors to write LaTeX than to write SGML; and [2] if SGML is ever to have the acceptability with authors that LaTeX already has, publishers will need to agree on a common DTD; and [3] a common LaTeX class may be a step on the way to that. John Palmer 69 St Cross Road, Winchester SO23 9RE, England +44 1962 865261 johnp@bcs.org.uk On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, Y&Y Help Line wrote: > Maybe Springer is learning from Elsevier Sciences mistakes. They focused > on SGML for years --- and look what happened to *their* share prices :0!