Tue, 10 Nov 1998 16:22:49 GMT
<[log in to unmask]
> (message from Phillip Helbig on Tue,
10 Nov 1998 16:02:10 GMT)
> Yes. However, why not send additional files? Not the equivalent of the
> .bib, but the equivalent of the .blg.
The publisher is likely to want `the equivalent of the .bib'.
While authors may be given latex classes and supporting packages to
produce a manuscript that looks more or less like the printed journal,
these days the main requirement of the electronic document, especially
the frontmatter section, is that it can be parsed and the data stuck
into some document database maintained in house by the publisher. In
some cases the publisher may want to convert the whole document (as they
don't use tex in house at all) but even when they do use tex to format,
they probably want to extract the frontmatter fields as data. So the
aim of the game is to provide a system where the author provides as much
information as possible, not one where they supply the information half
digested with a view to one particular set of formatting requirements.
(speaking of .bib -> .bbl one thing I did was to try to make a bibtex
style set up so that essentially the .bbl file contained sufficient
information to re-create the .bib fields, so that even though the author
could submit the putatively `formatted' version of the bibliography, the
individual fields like author name and journal title and dates were
unambiguously marked up in the result, not needing to be guessed from