summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/info/ltx3pub/l3d002f.tex
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'info/ltx3pub/l3d002f.tex')
-rw-r--r--info/ltx3pub/l3d002f.tex638
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}