Tue, 10 Nov 1998 17:42:53 GMT
> Then this will be a lot of work (thanks for volunteering!) but it will
> only help the user who is trying to submit his article if you also
> pursuade the publisher to accept such documents. For example last I
> heard <well known publisher who shall remain nameless> were still
> recommending their authors use latex 2.09, so getting (some) publishers
> to move may take as much effort as producing the list in the first place.
Well, let's say it's just down to stupidity on the part of SOME
publishers. LaTeX2e is certainly better, especially from the
publishers' point of view, than 2.09. If they won't even take THAT
step, then I doubt they will go through this either.
I've been discussing with some colleagues here a boycott of the journal
MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY in favour of ASTRONOMY
AND ASTROPHYSICS, mainly due to the antediluvian LaTeX stuff at MNRAS.
It seems a lot of people are really pissed off, but those who make these
decisions don't seem to care.
It seems to me any publisher worth his salt would have a representative
on this list. Some do, some don't---I guess that answers my question.
> Of course this is a chicken and egg situation. You can't really expect
> that publishers accept such a list until it exists. (Although as I just
> pointed out, essentially the tex live CDs provide such a list already).
Well, the LaTeX core DOES exist, and many don't even accept that.
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.