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:

LaTeX journal and publisher macros

From:

Phillip Helbig <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 1 Oct 1997 15:38:22 GMT

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (198 lines)

I would like to get some hopefully productive discussion going.

Help improve LaTeX macro packages for scientific journals and publishers:

   http://multivac.jb.man.ac.uk:8000/latex-campaign/campaign.html

This page is itself just an attempt to generate some attention (and
contains, among other things, a link to the text after my .sig) and
hopefully will evolve into something more useful.  Of course I'm very
interested in similar activities elsewhere!


--
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.

 ==============================================================================

======================================================================
======================================================================
The need for a rapid upgrade and standardisation of LaTeX macros for
the preparation of scientific manuscripts.
======================================================================
======================================================================

During the last several years, a major change has taken place in the way
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
here, and few if any disadvantages.  It is definitely a practice which
should continue well into the future.  One major advantage is the time
saved by the authors (and potentially by the publishers as well,
depending on how they make use of TeX internally; this is of no concern
here, however), but if the present state persists, time spent doing
unnecessary things will increase and further progress will be halted.

There are two major problems, which I will discuss in turn.  The first,
and most serious, is the fact that many journals and publishers still
use macros based on LaTeX2.09, rather than the modern LaTeX2e, which has
been in existence since the middle of 1994.  The second is the useless
incompatibility of various macros.

LaTeX2e offers many useful advantages over LaTeX2.09, the previous
stable version.  This includes many things of particular reference to
the area of using macros to prepare manuscripts to be published
elsewhere, such as changes in the way fonts are selected and the
inclusion of graphics.  There have also been changes in the internal
structure of LaTeX, in particular to facilitate the construction of
packages, use of macros etc so it is particularly ironic that this has
been neglected by the many of the providers of macros.

Although LaTeX2e can process LaTeX2.09 documents, this so-called
compatibility mode is intended EXCLUSIVELY for documents which contain
NO new LaTeX features.  Thus, the continued use of outdated macros,
style files etc presents the writer of the manuscript---typically the
author himself whose main concern is not (or at least should not be) the
preparation of manuscripts but rather the production of their
content---with a serious dilemma.  Either not to learn new LaTeX
features, which could considerably improve efficiency, remaining
intellectually frozen with an outdated and imperfect LaTeX mindset, or
else to constantly switch between LaTeX2.09 and LaTeX2e.  Both are
obviously bad.  Since most authors have their own macros as well (the
use of which incidentally is greatly improved in LaTeX2e), they must
either not use them with one of the versions of LaTeX or maintain two
sets of macros.

This problem is also related to the other problem, which I will discuss
below, but first I discuss the second problem on its own.

Obviously, and with good reason, various journals and publishers like to
have their own look and feel.  LaTeX presents an ideal manner in which
this can be achieved, with the author concentrating on content rather
than presentation.  There are two basic ways in which this can be
achieved.  One is by redefining LaTeX commands, such as to alter the
manner in which a section title appears.  This presents no problems, as
the author need only be concerned with where to begin a section, and not
with the appearance of the manuscript.  Another method, sometimes
necessary as not everything can be achieved merely be redifinitions, is
to introduce new commands.  There are three potential problems with
this.

The first is that the author must learn additional commands, whose use
moreover is usually less well-documented and less well-tested than the
standard LaTeX commands.  This places an additional burden on the
author, although it is necessary to some degree.  The second problem is
that these commands can conflict with the authors own commands (unless
they are given very peculiar names, which introduces disadvantages of
its own); every time a new set of macros is used, there is the
potential need for the author to revise his own.  Thirdly, there is the
problem of different macro sets using different commands to accomplish
the same thing, or using the same command (perhaps with (different)
options in one case) to accomplish different tasks.  ALL THREE of these
problems would disappear if there were a COMMON set of journal and
publisher macros, distributed with the standard LaTeX distribution, to
which all journals and publishers would adhere.  Flexibility in the
definition of these commands would still allow---in fact, would
encourage---each individual macro package to redefine them to achieve a
unique look and feel.

It is important to realise that parts of manuscripts---especially
figures, tables and reference lists---are recycled.  Electronic
preparation of manuscripts has made this much easier, and much less time
is wasted.  Also, it sometimes happens, for various reasons, that a
manuscript is submitted to a different journal or publisher than that
which was originally intended.  Ideally, the author of the manuscript
should only have to change ONE line in the manuscript, namely that
specifying the macro package used.  (I am talking about format and
appearance here; of course, submission somewhere else might well involve
changes in content as well.  The author should be concerned with
content, not presentation.)

An area related to additional commands (as opposed to redifinitions of
standard commands) is that of different typographic conventions, such as
the type style of foreign words, the use of periods in abbreviations,
spelling etc.  These can be handles efficiently by making all variable
constructions commands which are defined appropriately by the
appropriate macro package.  This is especially relevant in the area of
reference lists and, to a lesser extent, citations in the text.
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.

In principle, an author could construct his own set of meta-macros which
would be appropriately defined for each macro package used.  In fact, it
was when considering this (after I upgraded from LaTeX2.09 to LaTeX2e
and started to use BibTeX) that the thoughts leading to writing this
text began.  Besides the unnecessary work involved (it would be much
easier for it to be done ONCE and made available to all), the fact that
the construction of such meta-macros is MUCH easier in LaTeX2e led me to
abandon any desire at all to support in any form any provider of macros
still based on LaTeX2.09.

What can be done about all of these problems?

Some journals and publishers already support or even REQUIRE LaTeX2e, so
there can be no question of there being any real reasons why this would
not work for ALL journals and publishers.  It might even be a good idea,
when there are alternatives, to boycott journals which do not support
(require?) LaTeX2e, sending manuscripts to the competition instead and a
letter to the journal/publisher which otherwise would have been
considered stating that until LaTeX2e is supported (required?) the
author will not waste his valuable time mucking about with outdated
macros.

There should be a concerted effort, including at least the LaTeX3 team
and LaTeX-knowledgeable representatives from ALL journals and publishers
who use LaTeX, to construct a common set of additional commands AS SOON
AS POSSIBLE.  The current situation is so pitiful that I see no reason
to wait until an almost-perfect version is attained; distribution with
the normal LaTeX source, which is updated twice a year, seems like a
good idea, with the first version coming AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.  Again,
the distribution of this common set of additional journal/publisher
commands with the normal LaTeX distribution is essential.

As I mentioned above, the two problems are related.  It would be a
mistake for each macro package to be upgraded INDEPENDENTLY to LaTeX2e,
with a view to harmonisation later, since a combined effort would save
work and create better compatibility. Similarly, it would be a mistake
to do the harmonisation in LaTeX2.09, since macros based on LaTeX2e will
be different anyway and the writing of macro packages is much better
organised in LaTeX2e.  Thus, the two goals must be pursued
simultaneously in a coordinated fashion.

On a related topic, although most journals and publishers don't simply
`print the PostScript file' but rather produce camera-ready copy, it
would be highly desirable if the production of this camera-ready copy
took place in a matter as similar as possible to the author's own
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
to submit paper versions of manuscripts, except for reference (as
opposed to production) purposes.  In particular, the author should be
able to depend on the figures being produced as in the accompanying
reference version, that is at the same size (one- or two-column width,
for example) and in the same aspect ratio.  I have even heard of authors
submitting figures on paper rather than electronically because in the
former case it is less likely that the aspect ratio be changed or the
figure printed in a size other than intended.  (Of course, this depends
on the reference version being correctly formatted, but this could be
made a requirement for acceptance of the manuscript.  Also, there might
be the normal LaTeX changes in the position of floats etc if a different
font is used and so on, but the manuscript should not depend on these
anyway.  However, the text and column widths are known to the author, so
it should be possible and be encouraged to prepare the figures
accordingly.)

Help improve LaTeX macro packages for scientific journals and publishers:

   http://multivac.jb.man.ac.uk:8000/latex-campaign/campaign.html

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