LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project


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 >>]

Print Reply
Phillip Helbig <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:58:28 GMT
text/plain (59 lines)
>  > Should one break the author's name up into initials and surnames, so
>  > that the order could be different in the main title and the running head
>  > and/or different than the order in which the author would have put them
> you mean the running head might say "Einstein, A"? all i can say is
> that i have not been ever asked  to do it...

What about just the last names (no initials) in the running head?
Or should there be ONE command for the running head?  This might prove
to inflexible, since some will want all author names, some et al. and so

> if you consider a two column layout, with front matter set over both
> columns, it becomes important to know where front matter starts and
> stops.

Good point.

> one of our journals puts the abstract as a footnote :-}

There really is no accounting for taste.

> the important thing is whether people think the necessary
> information is all in place.

I'll wait until the comments have subsided and post a revised version:)

> re dates, i note that we support received, revised, accepted, and
> communicated. you only have 3 fields.

Add as many as the maximum number required by anyone.  What exactly is
`communicated' (as opposed to `received in original form')?

> by the way, i think that using multiple parameters in this, and other,
> macros is not very friendly. why not adopt the keyval syntax, ie
>  \date{communicated=xxxx,revised=xxxx}
> which allows a more elegant way to omit arguments, and identify what
> you are doing. i know its just sugar, but it would make bits of what
> you suggest easier to read

Two problems here (perhaps some graphics/graphicx comments are
appropriate here:).  The keyword syntax is different from the normal
LaTeX style; by FORCING the author to include everything, compatibility
is assured.  If optional arguments (either in [] or via omitted
keywords) are used then each individual .cls should complain if keywords
are missing.  One must also avoid individual packages adding their own
keywords etc without coordination with others.

Phillip Helbig                          Email ... [log in to unmask]
Nuffield Radio Astronomy Laboratories   Tel. ..... +44 1477 571 321 (ext. 297)
Jodrell Bank                            Fax ................. +44 1477 571 618
Macclesfield                            Telex ................. 36149 JODREL G
UK-Cheshire SK11 9DL                    Web ....

My opinions are not necessarily those of NRAL or the University of Manchester.