diff options
author | Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info> | 2019-09-02 13:46:59 +0900 |
---|---|---|
committer | Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info> | 2019-09-02 13:46:59 +0900 |
commit | e0c6872cf40896c7be36b11dcc744620f10adf1d (patch) | |
tree | 60335e10d2f4354b0674ec22d7b53f0f8abee672 /info/ltx3pub/l3d002f.tex |
Initial commit
Diffstat (limited to 'info/ltx3pub/l3d002f.tex')
-rw-r--r-- | info/ltx3pub/l3d002f.tex | 638 |
1 files changed, 638 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/info/ltx3pub/l3d002f.tex b/info/ltx3pub/l3d002f.tex new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..d760a00ceb --- /dev/null +++ b/info/ltx3pub/l3d002f.tex @@ -0,0 +1,638 @@ +%%% ==================================================================== +%%% @LaTeX3-article{ LaTeX3-LTX3-002f, +%%% filename = "l3d002f.tex", +%%% archived = "ctan:/tex-archive/info/ltx3pub/", +%%% related-files = "part of l3d002.tex", +%%% author = "David Rhead", +%%% doc-group = "Project core team", +%%% title = "Some ideas for improving {\LaTeX}\\ General", +%%% version = "1.1", +%%% date = "18-Mar-1993", +%%% time = "20:19:36 GMT", +%%% status = "public, official", +%%% abstract = "Ideas and suggestions from David Rhead for +%%% improving various areas in LaTeX", +%%% note = "prepared for the workshop at Dedham 91", +%%% keywords = "", +%%% project-address = "LaTeX3 Project \\ +%%% c/o Dr. Chris Rowley \\ +%%% The Open University \\ +%%% Parsifal College \\ +%%% Finchley Road \\ +%%% London NW3 7BG, England, UK", +%%% project-tel = "+44 171 794 0575", +%%% project-FAX = "+44 171 433 6196", +%%% project-email = "LTX3-Mgr@SHSU.edu", +%%% copyright = "Copyright (C) 1993 LaTeX3 Project +%%% All rights reserved. +%%% +%%% Permission is granted to make and distribute +%%% verbatim copies of this publication or of +%%% coherent parts from this publication provided +%%% this copyright notice and this permission +%%% notice are preserved on all copies. +%%% +%%% Permission is granted to copy and distribute +%%% translations of this publication or of +%%% individual items from this publication into +%%% another language provided that the translation +%%% is approved by the original copyright holders. +%%% +%%% No other permissions to copy or distribute this +%%% publication in any form are granted and in +%%% particular no permission to copy parts of it +%%% in such a way as to materially change its +%%% meaning.", +%%% generalinfo = "To subscribe to the LaTeX3 discussion list: +%%% +%%% Send mail to listserv@vm.urz.uni-heidelberg.de +%%% with the following line as the body of the +%%% message (substituting your own name): +%%% +%%% subscribe LaTeX-L First-name Surname +%%% +%%% To find out about volunteer work: +%%% +%%% look at the document vol-task.tex which can +%%% be obtained electronically, see below. +%%% +%%% To retrieve project publications electronically: +%%% +%%% Project publications are available for +%%% retrieval by anonymous ftp from ctan hosts: +%%% ftp.tex.ac.uk +%%% ftp.dante.de +%%% ftp.shsu.edu +%%% in the directory /tex-archive/info/ltx3pub. +%%% +%%% The file ltx3pub.bib in that directory gives +%%% full bibliographical information including +%%% abstracts in BibTeX format. A brief history +%%% of the project and a description of its aims +%%% is contained in l3d001.tex. +%%% +%%% If you only have access to email, and not ftp +%%% You may use the ftpmail service. +%%% Send a message just containg the word +%%% help +%%% to ftpmail@ftp.shsu.edu +%%% for more information about this service. +%%% +%%% For offers of financial contributions or +%%% contributions of computing equipment or +%%% software, contact the project at the above +%%% address, or the TeX Users Group. +%%% +%%% For offers of technical assistance, contact the +%%% project at the above address. +%%% +%%% For technical enquiries and suggestions, send +%%% e-mail to the latex-l list or contact the +%%% project at the above address.", +%%% checksum = "48575 638 4812 31716", +%%% docstring = "The checksum field above contains a CRC-16 +%%% checksum as the first value, followed by the +%%% equivalent of the standard UNIX wc (word +%%% count) utility output of lines, words, and +%%% characters. This is produced by Robert +%%% Solovay's checksum utility.", +%%% } +%%% ==================================================================== + +\chapter{Some e-mail comments on standard styles} + +\begin{footnotesize}\begin{verbatim} +From: David Rhead ... +Date: 3 Mar 91 17:58:49 + +At Cork, I think that Frank mentioned the idea of both: +1. supplying style files that emulate the effect of the present LaTeX 2.09 + "standard styles" (for backwards compatibility) +2. supplying new "standard style" files. I think he mentioned having + analogues of the current article, report and book, plus having + a "conference proceedings" style. +This note is about (2). + +In general, I'd suggest that (2) be done in line with traditional mainstream +publishing practice. [This seemed to be what Phil Taylor was after when, +at Cork, he described the adjustments he'd had to make to get a LaTeX-ed +book that didn't scream "I've been produced by (La)TeX!", and could be +published. It would be nice if people in his position didn't have to make so +many adjustments.] This leaves the problem of determining what mainstream +practice is. Here are some comments about page-sizes and typefaces. + + + JOURNAL ARTICLES + +As regards journal articles, the book by Page, Campbell & Meadows may be +helpful [1, pp. 35-6]. The gist of it seems to be that, for reasons +connected with the sizes of printing presses, journals tend to ignore +B5 and A4 (or did when [1] was written) and go for page sizes of: +* 244 mm x 172 mm, with a 2-column layout. This is slightly smaller + than B5 (because B5 doesn't make optimum use of the presses). + Page et al. seem to be talking in terms of typesize of "9 on 10.5" + for such a design (although strictly speaking this was for a B5 example.) + Perhaps this is what the analogue of \documentstyle[9pt,twocolumn]{article} + should be designed for. +* 276 mm x 219 mm (demi quarto), with a 2-column layout. This is slighly + smaller than A4. Page et al. seem to be talking in terms of typesize of + "10 on 11.5" for such a design. + Perhaps this is what the analogue of \documentstyle[10pt,twocolumn]{article} + should be designed for. + +Page et al. also give two B5 (250 mm x 176 mm) examples: +* single-column, type-area 197 mm x 130 mm, 10 on 11.5 + Perhaps the analogue of \documentstyle[10pt]{article} should + implement something like this. +* double-column, type-area 206 mm x 133 mm, 9 on 10.5 +These may be more to illustrate economics of different designs than +to say that people actually use B5 much, though. They say that +single column with 10pt is usually preferred for maths & physics. + +If some of the "new standard style" files implemented designs aimed +at the above sizes of paper (with crop marks to show the corners of +the target area), they might serve as a good starting point for anyone who +has to produce a style file for a real journal, particularly if the rest +of the design was based on "the average design" of some real journals +Such styles might also keep authors happy who want to see what their paper +might look like in a real journal. + + + BOOKS + +As regards books, Hugh Williamson suggests that the A series haven't caught +on for book work (not in 1983 Britain, anyway) [2, ch. 3]. He lists the +British Standard cut-page sizes, including (in millimetres): + quarto octavo +crown 246 x 189 186 x 123 +large crown 258 x 201 198 x 129 +demy 276 x 219 216 x 138 +royal 312 x 237 234 x 156 +Apparently 181 x 111 and 178 x 111 are used for paperbacks. +He also lists the corresponding American stock sheet sizes, which give +cut-page sizes of: + 140 x 216 + 156 x 235 + + 127 x 187 + 137 x 203 + 140 x 210 + 143 x 213 +which agrees with the Chicago Manual of Style [3, p. 623]. + +Obviously there is a great variety of sizes. Presumably any new "standard +book styles" would have to be designed for a particular size of paper. I'd +suggest that they be designed for a cut-sheet size that IS actually used for +books (e.g. one or more of the above) and that crop-marks be produced to +show the "target area". Ruari McLean [4, p. 130] says that demi octavo is +one of the most "normal" sizes for books, so perhaps 216 x 138 (or the +nearest US size, 216 x 140) should be one of the "target areas". + +As regards section headings - +Williamson [2, p. 163] mentions the scheme: + level A (i.e., \section) in roman capitals; + level B in small capitals; + level C in upper/lower case italic, + level D in upper/lower case italic, followed by a point, run-in + with text. +"The Chicago Manual of Style" [3, p. 570] mentions: + level A caps & small caps (or full caps) + level B in small capitals + level C in italics, upper/lower case, followed by a point, + run in with text. +There seems a fair amount of consensus between these gurus. Perhaps +elements of these schemes could be combined to give a mainstream design +that isn't going to upset anyone. + + + A4 (and US equivalent) + +We have the contradition that: +* LaTeX is a typeSETTING system. For most books and journals, + the typesetting tradition uses paper that is smaller than A4, and + uses fonts of around 10pt. +* most LaTeX output comes, at least in the first instance, on A4 (or + US equivalent) paper from a laserprinter, where A4 etc. is an "office" + paper size that fits in with the typeWRITING tradition (which usually + involves fonts of arout 12pt). +So the naive user, seeing something from a "book" \documentstyle on A4 +in 10pt, starts to ask "Why doesn't it use all the paper?". Crop +marks, to indicate the page-size for which the design is intended, +might help: +* such people to understand why the design doesn't fill A4 +* avoid such people getting an a4.sty out of an archive and going + \documentstyle[a4]{...} (to get text height/width that purports + to be "for A4 paper") and then wondering why they've got something + that is difficult to read +* help anyone who wants to produce a book to visualise the effect + that was intended by the designer. + +Although it may not be clear which, of the large variety of cut-page +sizes in common use, should provide the target "cut-page sizes" for the +"new standard style's" article and book designs (and their variants), +it does seem fairly clear that: +* the target "cut-page sizes" should generally be smaller than the A4 sheet + on which output will initially appear +* the users should be made aware that the target area is different from A4, + so they don't ruin the design in their attempts to "make it fit A4". + +Obviously, if a design is intended for A4 (as it might be for a +draft article, a report or a thesis), the crop marks would be omitted. +Users would then know that they can use the output just as it comes out +of their laserprinter. + + + GENERAL + +I'd be inclined to make Times Roman the normal font for running text +in any "new standard styles" (with a switch somewhere to substitute +Computer Modern for anyone who doesn't have Times Roman, or wants +to get "nearly ready for publication" before they switch from +preview-able Computer Modern to less-easily-previewed Times Roman). +I have the impression that Times Roman is "the default font" for running +text in mainstream publishing. This would cut out one change that publishers +often seem (rightly or wrongly) to ask people to make who are trying to +typeset a book themselves. [I have nothing against Computer Modern. +I'm just inclined to "bow to the inevitable".] + +I'd be inclined to refrain from providing style-files in situations +where they are unrealistic. For example, if it is very rare for +real journals and books to use a 12 point typeface for running text, +it may not be worth the effort of supporting \documentstyle[12pt]{article} +and \documentstyle[12pt]{book}. To support such things may involve +asking the question "What design would one have for a 12pt journal?", to +which the real answer may be "One wouldn't actually have a 12pt journal." + +As an alternative to "making the cut-page size depend on the font-size" +(which seems the consequence of the 2.09 way of doing things), it might +be worth considering "making the font-size depend on the target page-size". +E.g. rather than having the user go + \documentstyle[11pt,twocolumn]{article} +and (having measured distance between the crop-marks) deducing the +size of paper for which the design is intended, it might make more +sense for the user to go + \documentstyle[...b5]{article} +and get a one-column 10 on 11.5 design intended for B5 paper, or + \documentstyle[...b5,twocolumn]{article} +and get a two-column 9 on 10.5 design for B5, or + \documentstyle[...demisemioctavo]{article} +to get an error message along the lines "Sorry. No single-column +design is available for the demisemioctavo paper-size." Designs could +then be limited to combinations of paper-size and layout that a real +journal might conceivably use. + + + REFERENCES + +[1] Gillian Page, Robert Campbell & Jack Meadows. + "Journal publishing: principles and practice", Butterworths, 1987. + ISBN 0-408-10716-2. + +[2] Hugh Williamson. "Methods of Book Design", Yale University Press, + 1983. ISBN 0-300-03035-5. + +[3] "The Chicago Manual of Style", Chicago University Press, 1982. + ISBN 0-226-10390-0. + +[4] Ruari McLean, "The Thames and Hudson Manual of Typography", + Thames and Hudson, 1980. ISBN 0-500-68022-1. +\end{verbatim}\end{footnotesize} +\begin{center} --- \end{center} +\begin{footnotesize}\begin{verbatim} +From: Sebastian Rahtz <S.P.Q.Rahtz@UK.AC.SOTON.ECS> +Date: Mon, 4 Mar 91 11:11:40 gmt +... writes: + > My feeling on the standard document styles (and this is the way + > that I teach this in my LaTeX classes) is that they DEFINE the + > structures that appear in a document type, but only give an + > EXAMPLE of the appearance of those structures as printed. My +yes, fine. a good approach. but it is not very efficient if the +examples are not directly useable. you are talking about people +writing new style files, but 99.9% of the punters have no clue even +where the style files *are* let alone what to do to amend them. + +I applaud David Rhead's notes. Lamport states clearly that he +consulted document designers when he created the examples styles; +history seems to show that not many people agree with his style +designers, so lets at least try again and make LaTeX acceptable to a +few more people. Would anyone like to claim that LaTeX's defaults are +acceptable to any publisher they have dealt with? I'd suggest that the +defaults are quite suitable for computer science technical reports; +does not LaTeX aspire to be a professional tool? + + > Rather than trying to do something like say, let's make article + > look as much like some "standard" appearance for articles (good + > luck), let's create good structure definitions in our styles, +the two are not opposed + +I was interested by David's reflection that + [12pt]{article} +was contradictory. I suggest that the reason it exists is that people +use `article' for 90% of their daily work (like quick reports on what they +are up to, or class notes) *not* for journal articles. its a misnomer, +IMHO. I have never yet produced a document for use outside this +building that did not require a style different from `article' - are +there *any* journals which would accept it? This is no reflection, of +course, on LL's work! I just think the style designers he talked to +are unrepresentative of the profession. + +These discussions often concentrate on headings, by the way. Lets not +forget lists. Maybe David can tell us the ISO standard for vertical +space between items in an enumerated list + +PS what puts me off going away and playing with these ideas in sample +styles is a slight fear that the style interface will be very +different from what I have now. After hearing Frank talk about the +concept of an environment stack driven by rules, I have been lying +awake at night trying to decide what I think. If that *is* the model +to adopt, then it affects a lot of the ways one thinks about style +files. +\end{verbatim}\end{footnotesize} +\begin{center} --- \end{center} +\begin{footnotesize}\begin{verbatim} +From: David Rhead ... +Date: 4 Mar 91 15:43:11 + +Sebastian asks whether I can find an ISO standard for vertical space +between items in an enumerated list. + +I doubt whether there is such an ISO standard (although we don't have the +standards here for me to browse through). My impression is that ISO might +pronounce on document-structure and on things like SGML, but that +they are unlikely to pronounce on details of typographic design and +"house style". I haven't been able to find any particular views expressed +about lists in books on typographic design, either (except for Jan White - +see below). + +We do have British Standards for browsing. Those for theses, manuals +and reports (4821, 4884 and 4811) don't express any views on lists +(although they do seem to generally like arabic numbering). + +Jan White devotes pages 88-92 of "Graphic Design for the Electronic Age" +to lists. As a non-guru, I wouldn't lay lists out like Jan White +(not in a book that has non-indented paragraphs, anyway), since it +leaves the reader unclear about where paragraphs end. In documents +that have non-indented paragraphs, I wouldn't put extra space between +list items (because I'd want the reader to be able to distinguish +between "list within paragraph" and "list at end of paragraph", and hence +to be able to distinguish one paragraph from the next). But then Jan White +is a guru and I'm not. + +Martin Bryan devotes pages 328-333 of "SGML: an author's guide" to how a +particular "sample DTD" treats lists, but this doesn't answer Sebastian's +query either. (This particular DTD allows the author to over-ride +"house style" by specifying the numbering sequence to be used. I was +surprised to see such emphasis given to a feature that over-rides +"house style", since I thought that SGML was intended to help deliver +documents that conform to a "house style".) +\end{verbatim}\end{footnotesize} +\begin{center} --- \end{center} +\begin{footnotesize}\begin{verbatim} +Date: Mon, 4 Mar 91 16:29:09 CET +Comments: Originally-From: Don Hosek <DHOSEK@HMCVAX.CLAREMONT.EDU> + +My feeling on the standard document styles (and this is the way +that I teach this in my LaTeX classes) is that they DEFINE the +structures that appear in a document type, but only give an +EXAMPLE of the appearance of those structures as printed. My +approach to style design is to, after some preliminaries, input +the base style (report/letter/book/article) which defines the +category of documents that I'm working in. + +Rather than trying to do something like say, let's make article +look as much like some "standard" appearance for articles (good +luck), let's create good structure definitions in our styles, +make it easy to adjust the styles with the outline I gave above, +and provide multiple versions of how those classes of documents +could appear. +\end{verbatim}\end{footnotesize} +\begin{center} --- \end{center} +\begin{footnotesize}\begin{verbatim} +From: N.POPPELIER@NL.ELSEVIER +Date: Tue, 5 Mar 91 12:45:21 +0000 + +I'd like to reply to David Rhead's recent contributions to this list. + + +1. His summary of page sizes and typefaces for book and journal publishing +is of course interesting in its own right, but its relevance with respect to +the discussion going on this list is not high -- this is not meant as a +personal criticism! + +Getting the sizes and typefaces right for a document style for scientific +books or journals always turns out to be the easiest part, in my experience. + +LaTeX needs more tools for designing page layouts, font sets -- the new font +selection scheme is already a major improvement -- and section headings, but +summaries of page sizes or section heading schemes are a bit beside the point +here. + +A few details: + +1.1. As for the use of typeface sizes >10pt: production of camera ready copy +on a larger page frame, using \normalsize = 12pt, followed by photographic +reduction, is normal practice here. `What design would one have for a 12pt +journal?' is not the right question. + +1.2. Times Roman can never be the normal font as long as the only font _all_ +TeX sites have is Computer Modern. Far more important: the new font selection +scheme combined with the virtual-font mechanism enables you to make a +document-style option for _any_ font you like. + +1.3. As for Sebastian's comment: there is nothing wrong with using `article', +especially with \baselinestretch > 1.0 and in combination with the 11pt or +12pt option, for producing a preprint of a research paper. In our, i.e. +Elsevier's, case the printed version produced by the author is excellent for +conventional copy-editing. For compuscripts, it doesn't even matter what the +author uses to print his article, since we put in a new document style during +the production stage. Only in a very limited number of cases do we accept the +printed version for actual production of the book or journal. +So `are there *any* journals which would accept it?' is the wrong question, +at least in Elsevier's case. + + +2. The paper on reference lists concentrates too much on layout and not +enough on structure. For a, in my humble opinion, much more valuable +discussion of LaTeX 3.0, reference lists and BibTeX I'd like to refer to the +talk Frank Mittelbach gave at the Cork conference last year. + +As for `standards in academic publishing': there aren't any! At one of the +first meetings of the Dutch TeX Users Group there was a discussion about this +and a staff member of Kluwer Scientific Publishers argued that every +publisher has his own standards. It's the same here at ESP: every publishing +unit within our company has its own standards, and even though there is +something like an `ESP house style', there is also plenty of variation. + +I'm totally opposed to the idea of having different coding schemes for +different systems of citation. In my opinion, this goes completely against +the basic idea behind LaTeX and SGML, namely separation of form and contents. +Consider the amount of re-coding when switching from the number system to the +name-year system! + +To David's review I'd like to add that \bibitem's have no sub-division, at +least not one that is indicated by explicit control sequences (`tags'). +Instead, the tagging of \bibitem's is done _outside_ LaTeX, which has always +struck me as odd. +\end{verbatim}\end{footnotesize} +\begin{center} --- \end{center} +\begin{footnotesize}\begin{verbatim} +From: MITTELBACH FRANK <PZF5HZ@EARN.RUIPC1E> +Date: Thu, 7 Mar 91 12:17:48 CET + +Here is an answer from Leslie to Davids mail about sizes +and a few comments of my own. + +----------------------------------------------------------------------------- + + he'd had to make to get a LaTeX-ed book that didn't scream "I've been + produced by (La)TeX!", and could be published. + +LaTeX output screams "I've been produced by LaTeX" because it has been +produced with the same standard document style that every other LaTeX +user uses. As long as there are standard styles, that's going to be +the case. And that's fine with me. + + journals tend to ignore B5 and A4 + +When there is a standard journal, there will be a standard journal +style. Until then, journals who want to typeset using LaTeX will +have to design their own styles. + +As long as the printers used by 99.99997% of LaTeX users use either +8-1/2" X 11" or A4 paper, the standard LaTeX styles will be designed to +be printed on that paper. + +Similarly, until there is a standard-sized book, the standard LaTeX +"book" style will be for 8-1/2" X 11" or A4 paper, so they can be used +while writing the book. (This may come as a surprise to some of the +younger members of the TeX community raised during the television age, +but books actually have to be written--a process that takes orders of +magnitude longer than typesetting.) Thus, "book" describes the logical +structures that are handled, not the size and shape of the typeset +output. + +Leslie Lamport + +----------------------------------------------------------------------------- + +I agree with David insofar as the standard styles do not conform +to general practice at least in europe. +But the aim of the standard styles is to provide a layout that +is displaying the contents in a logical way, down to six levels +of sectional units etc. +Or say it in another way, the LaTeX styles will work with any kind +of document that use their tags. This is often not true for +special styles. + +We certainly have to try making standard styles that will be usable +by many sites without much adjustments, I agree that at the moment +nearly every user (to my experience in Germany) fiddles around with +the settings because the standard University style is sooooo much +different, but we should keep styles that support documents they +the current styles do. + +Adding better support for the two main paper sizes namly Laserprinter +A4 or American size is certainly necessary, and should be part of the +document style since it usually effects quite a few parameter. +The current situation in Europe is not satisfactory with 10 different +A4 styles that all have different problems. +\end{verbatim}\end{footnotesize} +\begin{center} --- \end{center} +\begin{footnotesize}\begin{verbatim} +From: "Nelson H.F. Beebe" <beebe@edu.utah.math> +Date: Mon, 4 Mar 91 12:47:55 MST + +... + +we should make sure to avoid using style file names longer than 8 +characters (PC DOS strikes again). Even though most TeX +implementations on the PC simply drop the extra characters, and find +the right file, when users employ the truncated name and then port +their files back to other systems, they discover that LaTeX cannot +find their style files, and may have to resort to a TeXpert for help. +... +\end{verbatim}\end{footnotesize} +\begin{center} --- \end{center} +\begin{footnotesize}\begin{verbatim} +From: David Rhead ... +Date: 3 Apr 91 11:57:22 + +You may remember my entry about "standard styles" on March 3rd. +Here are a few comments about the subsequent comments. + +I started on March 3rd by recalling that Frank had mentioned (at Cork) the +idea of having both: +1. style files that emulate the effect of the 2.09 standard styles, + book, article, report, etc. +2. some additional style files, analogous to, but different from, + the present book, article and report, plus a "conference proceedings" + style. +[I hope I've remembered Frank's remarks correctly, and that (2) isn't just +a figment of my imagination.] + +My suggestions were about (2). I don't know how definite Frank's plans +are about "having some additional style files". If no-one has time to do +anything, neither my suggestions nor the subsequent comments matter +much anyway. But if someone has time to do something about (2), they might +as well try to make the style files practically useful. This could be +either by having designs that are aimed at a phototypesetter, on which + "print size" will also be "publication size" (which was the scenario + I assumed) +or by having designs that are intended for printing "too big" followed + by photographic reduction for publication (as mentioned by Nico). +If something is done, please could the corresponding style files have +comments stating the design assumptions, e.g. "This design is intended +for ultimate publication (without reduction) on demi-octavo paper. If printed +on bigger paper, it produces crop marks to show the demi-octavo target area." +or "This design is intended for ultimate publication on B5 paper. To achieve +the effect intended by the designer, you must photoreduce the LaTeX-ed +output to 70%" or "This design is only intended for use while you are +writing your book. Unless you are proficient at writing LaTeX style-files, +you are advised to submit your book to a publisher whose staff can supply +style-files that will re-format the book prior to publication.". +I.e. the assumptions should be made clear, so that people know what they +have to do to get the effect the designer intended with the style-files that +form part of the standard distribution, and can make changes (if necessary +to keep their publisher happy) from a position of understanding the +designer's assumptions/intentions rather than from a position of ignorance. + +I'd have thought that Leslie's concern about people who are at the "writing" +stage, and are using standard laserprinter paper, would be catered for by +(1), i.e. the style-files that emulate the 2.09 standard styles. + +Frank reports Leslie as saying + "book" describes the logical structures that are handled +This is obviously true in the sense that LaTeX 2.09's book.sty etc. define the +logical structures that LaTeX 2.09's "book style" handles. But what if +the logical structures that the 2.09 book.sty etc. handle aren't quite +the logical structures of "a book" as understood by the rest of the publishing +industry? See, for example, pages 4 and 5 of the "Chicago Manual of Style" +(which has its origins pre-television) and pages 157-161 of Jan White's +post-television "Graphic Design for the Electronic Age". A move towards the +industry's structures would be "a good thing" (e.g. it would make it easier to +implement design decisions like "within front matter we do this" and "within +back matter we do that"). If questions arise about whether any + "additional style files, analogous to, ... the present book, etc." +should implement 2.09 structures or "publishing-industry standard" structures, +I'd suggest a move towards the "publishing-industry standard" structures. +\end{verbatim}\end{footnotesize} +\begin{center} --- \end{center} +\begin{footnotesize}\begin{verbatim} +From: Don Hosek <DHOSEK@EDU.CLAREMONT.HMCVAX> +Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 12:23:00 PST + +My feeling on the standard document styles (and this is the way +that I teach this in my LaTeX classes) is that they DEFINE the +structures that appear in a document type, but only give an +EXAMPLE of the appearance of those structures as printed. My +approach to style design is to, after some preliminaries, input +the base style (report/letter/book/article) which defines the +category of documents that I'm working in. + +Rather than trying to do something like say, let's make article +look as much like some "standard" appearance for articles (good +luck), let's create good structure definitions in our styles, +make it easy to adjust the styles with the outline I gave above, +and provide multiple versions of how those classes of documents +could appear. +\end{verbatim}\end{footnotesize} |