> The need for a rapid upgrade and standardisation of LaTeX macros for
> the preparation of scientific manuscripts.
I strongly support the concept of extended standard markup,
particularly for front matter. long overdue.
> that manuscripts are prepared for many scientific journals and books:
> TeX, usually in the guise of LaTeX, has become the form in which
> manuscripts are written. This has many advantages, too many to detail
i have said it ad nauseam, and i say it again; i work for the worlds
largest STM publisher, and i can assure you that *here*
- the great majority of MSS are not in LaTeX
- LaTeX is not used internally for CRC except in special circumstances
though that should not discourage you. in addition, i don't know of any
publishing house which, if pressed, would not claim that SGML was
their long-term data storage format, not LaTeX
> Fortunately, this problem can ALREADY be solved by the use of Patrick
> Daly's natbib.sty and custom-bib package. Since this is IDEALLY suited
> to the problem of variation in citations and references, it should
> actually be REQUIRED by all journals and publishers who use LaTeX at
hear, hear. natbib/custom-bib are awesome contributions to the LaTeX
> On a related topic, although most journals and publishers don't simply
> `print the PostScript file' but rather produce camera-ready copy,
we cannot be unusual in having a very high emphasis these days on
getting an electronic form of the article, in a portable form, ie
SGML. dont talk to me about latex2html.... what gets printed is a side
some of you concerns should be taken up with the *editor*, not the
*publisher*. i think you are promoting (rightly) use of email as the
*only* submission medium, for fast and efficient turnaround, and thats
before it gets to the publisher (depending on the journal).
> manuscript production. For example, rather than submitting printouts of
> PostScript files, one should submit the files along with the TeX file,
> especially since the inclusion of graphics has now been standardised in
> LaTeX2e. Whatever method is used to turn the text into camera-ready
> copy can process the PostScript files as well. There should be no need
how many PostSCript files from random authors have you processed?
clearly your success rate is considerably higher than mine!
*please* dont suggest PostScript. its inventors, Adobe, have invested
their authority and considerable research into the next generation
language, PDF, who advantages so much outweigh the problems (in our
world) that it seems (to me) madness not to espouse it. especially
since we have a TeX that writes PDF directly.
you central argument (better
standardised markup) is close to my own heart. both Michael Downes and
David Carlisle (key `They' people) have got proposals on the back-boiler
which they should be encouraged (funded?) to refine. as the maintainer
(I think, i am never sure) of the Elsevier preprint styles, I'll
pledge my cooperation where possible.
but i think you are whistling down the wind if you imagine the use of
LaTeX will have a massive expansion due to standardisation. the powers
of Bill Gates and XML are too strong, in my personal view.
 ie, please dont shout at me. its a personal feeling.