MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <14290.62189.842084.18205@spqr.oucs.ox.ac.uk>
            <Pine.GSU.4.03.9909060957010.9892-100000@angel2.cityscape.co.uk>
Message-ID:  <14291.36977.35408.636406@spqr.oucs.ox.ac.uk>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
In-Reply-To:  <Pine.GSU.4.03.9909060957010.9892-100000@angel2.cityscape.co.uk>
Date:         Mon, 6 Sep 1999 09:59:13 +0000
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:
 >
 > I'm pretty new to publishing; but the two publishers I've worked for each
 > have their own peculiar DTD for journal articles.  Where's the
 > standardisation?
 >
two answers:

 a) we were talking about the future, not the present
 b) direct tag compatibility is not so important in the {X,SG}ML
    world, as transformation is well understood and practised. the
    same data has to be present, but not in the same place....(shades
    of Eric Morecambe)

Sebastian