MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <4.2.0.58.19990831101459.0181aac0@tiac.net>
            <Pine.GSU.4.03.9908311543410.16549-100000@angel2.cityscape.co.uk>
Message-ID:  <14290.62189.842084.18205@spqr.oucs.ox.ac.uk>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
In-Reply-To:  <Pine.GSU.4.03.9908311543410.16549-100000@angel2.cityscape.co.uk>
Date:         Sun, 5 Sep 1999 23:47:09 +0100
From: Sebastian Rahtz <sebastian.rahtz@COMPUTING-SERVICES.OXFORD.AC.UK>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L
              <LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Subject:      Re: Standard journal macros
Status: R

John Palmer (johnp@bcs.org.uk) writes:

 > [1] in the short and medium term it is easier to get authors to write
 > LaTeX than to write SGML;

and about a million times easier again to get them to write in Word,
as 99% of them probably do :-}

 >  and [2] if SGML is ever to have the
 > acceptability with authors that LaTeX already has

authors in an extremely limited environment

 >  publishers will
 > need to agree on a common DTD;
Docbook and TEI not good enough?

mind you, I applaud Jorg's suggestion. it may not change the world,
but getting LaTeX's house in order must be a good thing.

Sebastian