LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for LATEX-L Archives


LATEX-L Archives

LATEX-L Archives


LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

LATEX-L Home

LATEX-L Home

LATEX-L  October 1997

LATEX-L October 1997

Subject:

Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros

From:

"LINPWD::DALY" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 2 Oct 1997 09:20:25 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (84 lines)

I am very much in favour of standardizing the LaTeX support for journals,
having supplied two such macro packages, one as an add-on to improve an
existing (2.09) mess that calls itself the official macro package for the major
journal in my field, and the other for which I was commissioned to produce the
official package. Of course the latter was much more enjoyable because I had a
free hand.

The problem of non-standardization is enormous, but more the fault of the
article.sty/cls that did not provide enough models for the necessary input
commands. Perhaps one should take AMS-LaTeX as a model since the AMS has always
been a keen supporter TeX/LaTeX and can be considered to have sufficient
practical experience with author-supplied copy in LaTeX(2e).

>  > 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
>  > all.
> hear, hear. natbib/custom-bib are awesome contributions to the LaTeX
> world

These are beautiful words to hear! They make the whole gigantic effort,
especially for custom-bib, well worthwhile. (I am a native English speaker, so
I have no problems with "awesome"; it is not the same as "awful" at all!)

The journal packages that I supply contain natbib coding (rather a subset of
it)  included in the .cls files themselves. This may sound perverse, but as the
author of natbib, I can take this liberty. It meant that I did not have to
distribute natbib explicitly with the journal packages, and it also meant that
much of the extra, unneeded features (the dancing girls) could be left out. I
originally wrote natbib to be used as a module that could be included (via
docstrip) in other packages; the module later evolved into an independent
package. To generalize this so that other programmers can do the same would
likely require some minor reworking of the code.

One point of non-standard interfacing that all journal packages must solve
somehow is the entry of the authors' names and affiliation. The standard LaTeX
syntax
             \author{First Author\\Affiliation One
                      \and
                 Second Author and Third Author\\Affiliation Two}
is inadequate for long author lists where the authors are not ordered by
affiliation. In this case, footnotes are usually used to associate author and
affiliation, with repeating footnote markers. There is no way to provide this
in standard LaTeX, so most journals must reinvent some syntax independently.
I myself have a package (not make public) that also can be used as a module,
that allows both the above syntax as well as
        \author{First Author}
        \affil{Affiliation One}
        \author{Second Author}
        \author{Third Author}
        \affil{Affiliation Two}
Depending on the number of affiliations, you either get the standard block-type
author-affil listing, or the footnote style. By adding optional markers, you
force the footnote method, as
        \author[1]{First Author}
        \author[2]{Second Author}
        \author[1,*]{Third Author}
        \affil[1]{Affiliation One}
        \affil[2]{Affiliation Two}
        \affil[*]{On leave from Affiliation Two}

I think this is a flexible input syntax. What is really printed depends on the
programmer, of course.

I agree with Sebastian that PostScript is an interim solution. I have not yet
worked with PDF but from what I hear of it, it is the better way of the
future. I am currently working as production editor on an 18 chapter book, of
500 pages, with dozens of PostScript figures. I assure you, the printing of
these figures, sent to me by various contributers from multitudes of software,
are often a real headache. As PostScript figures are used more and more, it is
becoming clear how much trouble they can cause. Usually because the generating
application abuses PostScript terribly.

Summing up, I am willing to participate in this standardization project.

Patrick
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Dr. Patrick W. Daly                    Tel. [+49] 5556-979-279
   Max-Planck-Institut fuer Aeronomie     Fax. [+49] 5556-979-240
   Max-Planck-Str. 2
   D-37191 Katlenburg-Lindau              Internet: [log in to unmask]
   Germany
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

September 2019
July 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
July 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
September 2007
August 2007
June 2007
May 2007
March 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
November 2004
October 2004
August 2004
July 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
October 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
March 2002
December 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

Universität Heidelberg | Impressum | Datenschutzerklärung

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager