The discussion seems to have died down a bit regarding the
standardisation of journal macros. Hopefully it will pick up again in
the new year.
One leading scientific journal is exemplary in REQUIRING 2e instead of
2.09 but prohibits the use of private macros (even if defined in the
preamble with no name clashes, redefinitions etc of standard commands or
ones from the special journal .cls), presumably because this is a
hindrance in conversion to HTML (which has the advantage of being
searchable) which they use as one of their online formats.
Is this something one must be prepared to accept in the long run? It
seems to me that there is no problem in principle and that this must be
a limitation of their current conversion process. It is certainly
contrary to the spirit of LaTeX. The suggestion is to replace macros
which serve as abbreviations before submission. This is easily enough
done, but the problem is that macros which one really needs, like with
multiple arguments, some or all of which might be used more or less than
once, are not so simply substituted.
I sent an email praising their support and even requirement of 2e and
making a few polite suggestions as to how they could make some
improvements and continue to be the leader in the field as far as LaTeX
is concerned; I also asked them to join in the discussion here. This
has been a while, and I have had no response and not seen anyone here.
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 .... http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~pjh/
My opinions are not necessarily those of NRAL or the University of Manchester.