Wed, 18 Jun 1997 17:31:21 +0200
Sebastian Rahtz wrote --
> > Agreed: but they are putting megabucks into the xxx archives
> > essentially "because authors want to use TeX and avoid publishers
> > (sepecially Elsevier:-)".
> I am glad to hear this from another source.
Happy to oblige.
> Did you [know] that the push `science' channel of Internet Explorer
> is to be under the sole control of Elsevier?
No: I blushingly admit to having used Internet Explorer but not intentionally.
This seems characteristic of Elsevier and possibly essential to their
survival (if some pundits are to be believed) but has little to do
with the reasons, as I understand them, for xxx archives or for most
of what the nsf fund.
For Micorosoft it would appear to be a major step towards a more
civilised approach to the world ... except that they maybe see it as
pulling Elsevier into their view of the future?
> the xxx people may capture the hearts
> and minds of a few hundred physicists,
Maybe a few more than that: but that is all they intend to do (except
for adding to "physicists" other research communities who wish to work
> but the Microsoft/Elsevier/SGML
> bandwagon is, I would argue, rather more wide-ranging.
But is it as useful to the research physicists? (I have no idea.)
Also, my understanding is that xxx is happy to provide access to
other people's stuff, so xxx could include this.
> How big is xxx
> compared to Science Direct?
In what units: are Elsevier prepared to reveal their data on such things?
I have seen Paul's data but cannot find it on the net right now.
> Possibly getting off subject. But wouldnt we all like to see LaTeX
> rooted behind M'softs world domination?
Aaaagh! "Better dead than in the MS-Web"...well, you find something
that scans properly:-).