## LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

 Options: Use Forum View Use Monospaced Font Show Text Part by Default Show All Mail Headers Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>] Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>] Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

 Subject: Re: frontmatter was: What is "base" LaTeX From: Marcel Oliver <[log in to unmask]> Reply To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 16:40:58 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain Parts/Attachments: text/plain (61 lines)
Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
>
>  > It seems to me that something similar to BibTeX is the best solution.
>  > There have been some preliminary versions of this mentioned on this
>  > list.  The journal could modify the \maketitle command to get all the
>  > frontmatter stuff (institute, email, present address, corresponding
>  > author, acknowledgements to title or authors etc etc) out of a .bib-like
>  > file, using what it needs and complaining if something is not there. The
>  > author just writes \title{efwe}\author{Fwfe}\date{fsfs} as usual (OK,
>
> but one of the problems with BibTeX is the lack of structure in an
> entry! that model will not satisfy the need to express the fact that
> there are 10 authors; 4 are are from institution B, 3 from institution
> C; author 9 is at institution B and D; author 10 is at instutition D,
> but currently on leave at A; author 10 is deceased. author 7 is the
> corresponding author.

I'd like to add two more problems with this idea:

o It requires coordination of external data structions between
the various authors as well as between authors and publisher, if
they all want to get the same printed output.  Any solution which
does not require the sending of additional files would be much
preferred.

o Two papers by the same author with the same publisher which are to
appear at the same time may carry different addresses, because the
papers were written at different institutions and should
carry as the main address the address of the institution at which
the work was performed.  This can not easily accomodated in a
BibTeX-like solution.

David Carlisle wrote:
> The hard part is to get an input syntax that can cope with these type of
> requirements and at the same time is not impossibly complicated to use
> on a simple two-authors-at-one-institution paper.

I can actually see that such a model may make sense when it comes to
200 authors per paper...  what about furthering the analogy with
BibTeX: Nothing prevents me from inserting an explicit thebibliography
environment, which is certainly preferred for trivial bibliographies.

Now if one can come up with a hidden, well-defined data-structure for
frontmatter items, then one could come up with the following scheme:

Several alternative modules at input level:
"bibtex like" OR "direct commands from within the document" OR
"legacy commands standard classes" OR "legacy commands AMS" OR
"legacy commands XXX"

In both cases the data is stored in internal macros.

Several alternatives at output level which access only the internal
macros:
"APS style" (possible several variations) OR
"plain article" OR
"plain book" OR
"AMS style" (I guess several) OR ...

Marcel