From e0c6872cf40896c7be36b11dcc744620f10adf1d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 13:46:59 +0900
Subject: Initial commit

---
 info/ltx3pub/l3d006.tex | 558 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 558 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 info/ltx3pub/l3d006.tex

(limited to 'info/ltx3pub/l3d006.tex')

diff --git a/info/ltx3pub/l3d006.tex b/info/ltx3pub/l3d006.tex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..3be75f0dc4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/info/ltx3pub/l3d006.tex
@@ -0,0 +1,558 @@
+%%% ====================================================================
+%%%  @LaTeX3-article{ LaTeX3-L3-006,
+%%%  filename        = "l3d006.tex",
+%%%  archived        = "ctan:/tex-archive/info/ltx3pub/",
+%%%  author          = "David Rhead",
+%%%  doc-group       = "Project core team",
+%%%  title           = "Structures to be supported",
+%%%  version         = "1.00",
+%%%  date            = "April 1992",
+%%%  time            = "",
+%%%  status          = "discussion paper",
+%%%  abstract        = "",
+%%%  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        = "61107 558 3086 23976",
+%%%  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.",
+%%%  }
+%%% ====================================================================
+
+
+%  These notes are along the same lines as Wessel Kraaij's comments, as
+%  copied from comp.text.tex by Rainer.
+
+%  Please feel free to replace ...
+   \documentstyle{l3ms001}
+   \sloppy
+%  ... by a command to map a "2.09 article structure" into whatever
+%  design you like which is compatible with that structure.
+
+\newcommand{\BibTeX}{{\rm B\kern-.05em{\sc i\kern-.025em b}\kern-.08em
+      T\kern-.1667em\lower.7ex\hbox{E}\kern-.125emX}}
+
+\begin{document}
+
+\title{Structures to be supported}
+\author{David Rhead}
+\date{April 1992}
+\maketitle
+
+\tableofcontents
+
+\section{Motivation}
+
+\subsection{Dual role of 2.09 style files}
+
+In \LaTeX\ 2.09, ``style files'' confuse 2 roles:
+\begin{itemize}
+\item definition of a structure.
+      (I think I've heard this given as a justification for the designs:
+      ``the designs don't matter, because the style-files are just there
+      to define what structures are supported''.)
+\item mapping the structure into a design.
+\end{itemize}
+For example:
+\begin{itemize}
+\item {\tt article.sty} and {\tt xarticle.sty} seem to map the same
+      structure (the ``\LaTeX\ 2.09 analysis of the structure of an {\tt
+      article}'') into different designs
+\item the command \verb+\documentstyle{siam}+ seems to map ``{\sc siam}'s
+      analysis of the structure of an article'' into ``{\sc siam}'s design for
+      an article''.  (If so, then the roles of \verb+\documentstyle[11pt]{siam}+
+      and \verb+\documentstyle[12pt]{siam}+ are unclear.  Are they intended
+      as ``preprint styles'', for an author to use while a paper is
+      being drafted?)
+\item the commands \verb+\documentstyle[onecolumn,10pt]{iso}+ and
+      \verb+\documentstyle[twocolumn,9pt]{iso}+ seem to map ``the structure
+      of an ISO standard'' into ``two designs for ISO standards''.
+\end{itemize}
+Changing from \verb+\documentstyle{article}+ to
+\verb+\documentstyle{xarticle}+ will work (i.e., give a document with the
+same structure but a different design), but changing from
+\verb+\documentstyle{article}+ to \verb+\documentstyle{siam}+ or to
+\verb+\documentstyle{iso}+ won't work.
+
+The analysis that was done for version 2.09 is mostly implicit in {\tt sty}
+files, rather than being available explicitly.  Subsequent providers of
+{\tt sty} files have generally followed the same practice (although some
+provide supplementary documentation).  Thus, a user who just wants his/her
+current structure laid out in a different design may end up reading lots of
+archived {\tt sty} file code to see whether an alternative {\tt sty} file
+supports the structure they are currently using.
+
+\subsection{Practical difficulties at 2.09}
+
+Someone attempting to produce a book/thesis with \LaTeX\ 2.09
+has to change various defaults:
+\begin{itemize}
+\item they will want their preliminary pages numbered in roman, but will
+      want to switch back to arabic at the start of their main text.
+      They may need a \verb+\setcounter+ to start the roman sequence at the
+      right place.
+\item they will probably want units such as ``acknowledgements'' and
+      ``references'' to appear in their ``table of contents''. They will
+      be using \verb+\chapter*+ for such units (to get headings that
+      look appropriate), so will have to use \verb+\addcontentsline+
+      to get the units mentioned in the ``table of contents''.
+\item page-selection can be a problem, since \verb+\count0+
+      doesn't distinguish between roman and arabic.
+\end{itemize}
+
+People producing ``an issue of a journal'', or a conference-proceedings,
+may have additional problems:
+\begin{itemize}
+\item if they treat the work as {\tt book} \cite[p.\ 23]{lamport}, they
+      will be faced with trying to get authors' names, affiliations, etc.,
+      typeset consistently at the start of each chapter.
+\item if they leave the work as a series of {\tt article}s, they will be faced
+      with ensuring that numbering (of pages, etc.) follows on.
+\end{itemize}
+
+I think that these problems arise because the analysis of ``document
+structure'' for the \LaTeX\ 2.09 ``standard styles'' is inappropriate:
+\begin{itemize}
+\item the concepts of ``front matter'' and ``back matter'' are well
+      known in publications about book design, etc., but aren't supported
+      by the 2.09 ``standard styles''
+\item an ``issue of a journal'', and a conference-proceedings, have structures
+      of their own (which are different from the structure of an ordinary book).
+\end{itemize}
+
+\subsection{Suggestion for 3.0}
+
+I think that there would be advantages in:
+\begin{enumerate}
+\item
+     keeping a clear distinction between ``the structure supported'' and
+     ``the design into which the structure is mapped'', so that the
+     end-user will known when they can/cannot change design by changing
+     just one line of their {\tt tex} file.
+\item
+     associated with (1), thinking in terms of ``software that maps a
+     structure into a design'', rather than ``style file'' which confuses
+     ``structure supported'' with ``design into which the structure is
+     mapped''
+\item
+     analyzing in more depth the structure of the types of documents to be
+     supported.  Then, for example, the end-user will be able to just say
+     ``this is front matter'', and so have details such as roman/arabic
+     numbering, heading style, and ``table of contents'' entries taken care
+     of automatically in accordance with the relevant design (or
+     house-style).
+\end{enumerate}
+
+\section{Structures to be supported}
+
+Various gurus \cite{chicago,aap,majour,white,bs-thesis,bs-report,tei} give
+analyses of the structures of the document-classes for which people use
+\LaTeX\ 2.09.  Although, there may be differences between the analyses
+offered by different gurus, I think that it would be better for the project
+to consult the gurus, rather than to ignore them (since otherwise the
+project will waste time re-doing the work already done by the gurus).
+
+\subsection{First proposition}
+
+It is easier to select the ``good bits'' from off-the-shelf analyses than
+to start from nothing.
+
+\subsection{Second proposition}
+
+For overall structure, particularly ``good bits'' are to be found in the
+{\it Chicago Manual of Style} \cite[pages 4,5]{chicago} and in the SGML DTDs
+published by the Association of American Publishers \cite[appendix B]{aap}.
+
+\subsection{Notes about AAP analysis}
+
+\subsubsection{Three basic structures}
+
+Broadly, the AAP analysis defines three basic structures:
+\begin{description}
+\item[BK-1] book/monograph/textbook, conference proceedings, technical report,
+      thesis/dissertation
+\item[ART-1] article, feature
+\item[SER-1] serial,\footnote{%
+      I think they mean ``an issue of a serial''.  See section
+      \ref{not-a-serial}.}
+      conference-proceedings.  (Articles are embedded within
+      a serial without any modifications.)
+\end{description}
+
+Thus, although the \LaTeX\ 2.09 and AAP analyses both define 3 main structures,
+the boundaries are drawn differently:
+\begin{itemize}
+\item
+     the AAP regards reports and books as having the same basic BK-1
+     structure (unlike \LaTeX\ 2.09, which has two distinct ``standard
+     styles'', {\tt report} and {\tt book}, the main difference being that
+     {\tt book} isn't allowed to have an abstract)
+\item
+     whereas the \LaTeX\ 2.09 manual suggests \cite[p.\ 23]{lamport} that
+     ``it is easy to include an article as a chapter in a report or book'',
+     the AAP defines a special structure, SER-1, for multi-author works
+     made up of separate articles.
+\end{itemize}
+
+\subsubsection{Borderline cases}
+
+Some types of document may lie on the borderline between two AAP
+categories.  For example, a long report might be divided into units called
+chapters and be appropriately classified as BK-1, while a short report
+might be divided into units called sections and be more akin to ART-1.
+(Compare \cite{aap}, which envisages that technical reports will have BK-1
+structure, with \cite{bs-report} which envisages that technical reports
+will be divided into sections.)
+
+At worst, cases that cross borderlines might need two mappings.  In the
+report example, they might be (1) a mapping of BK-1 structure to a report
+design, and (2) a mapping of ART-1 structure to a report design.  (This is no
+worse than the situation with the \LaTeX\ 2.09 ``standard styles'', which
+also envisage that {\tt report} is made up of chapters.) Thus, adoption of
+AAP classification would not cause insuperable difficulties.
+
+\subsubsection{Advantages of AAP analysis}
+
+Paying serious attention to the AAP analysis would have various advantages:
+\begin{itemize}
+\item the analysis is well-known
+\item it covers the types of documents that current \LaTeX-users generally
+      want to produce
+\item it generally (but not always) gives analysis to the depth that
+      \LaTeX\ 3.0 might need
+\item other gurus cite it (if only to disagree with it)
+\item it embodies knowledge about publishing practice that the
+      average \LaTeX-er doesn't have
+\item it is finite.  The project would not be attempting to analyse
+      all possible documents, but would be concentrating on the structures
+      that are most commonly required.
+\item support for AAP-like structures might attract ``real publishers''
+      to \LaTeX
+\item {\it it exists now} (unlike, for example, the European
+      journal-publishers' work \cite{majour}, which is still in progress).
+\end{itemize}
+
+\subsubsection{Disadvantages of AAP analysis}
+\label{not-a-serial}
+
+The AAP analysis is not suitable in all respects as a model of what
+\LaTeX\ 3.0 (and associated software) should do:
+\begin{itemize}
+\item The analysis may go deeper in some areas than is required for \LaTeX\ 3.0.
+      (If something with the ``look and feel'' of SGML is required, one might
+      as well use SGML.)
+\item On the other hand, the analysis doesn't go deep enough in other areas.
+      For example, the AAP analysis is no better than the \LaTeX\ 2.09 analysis
+      for:
+      \begin{itemize}
+      \item citations and reference-lists \cite{iso-690};
+      \item captions, legends and credit-lines \cite[ch.\ 11]{chicago};
+      \item notes to tables \cite[ch.\ 12]{chicago}.
+      \end{itemize}
+      Other gurus' analyses would have to be used in such areas.
+\item At a recent SGML meeting \cite{exeter8}, the AAP standard was
+      described as too Anglo-centric.  Hence the European journal-publishers'
+      work \cite{majour} was criticised as too AAP-influenced.
+\item ``Serial'' is usually used (e.g., by librarians) to describe a
+      publication that could potentially continue indefinitely (e.g., all
+      the issues of a journal, including those not yet published).
+      Therefore SER-1 may be a poor choice of name for a structure that
+      would represent ``a single issue of a series'' or a ``one-off
+      conference proceeedings''.  MULTI-1 might have been a better name
+      for such multi-author (or multi-article) works.
+\end{itemize}
+
+\subsubsection{Attitude to AAP analysis}
+
+An analysis based on that given by the AAP (minus a few details, plus a few
+other details which could be taken from \cite{chicago} and other places)
+might give a reasonable compromise between:
+\begin{itemize}
+\item ``re-inventing the wheel''
+\item blindly obeying something (AAP structure) that hasn't been thought through
+ in all
+      respects.
+\end{itemize}
+
+\subsection{Example}
+
+For example, if some compromise was made between the Chicago analysis and
+the AAP analysis, one might envisage a user preparing a file of the form:
+\begin{verbatim}
+.
+\begin{frontmatter}
+   \frontelement{Foreword}
+   ...
+   \frontelement{Preface}
+   ...
+   \frontelement{Acknowledgements}
+   ...
+   \frontelement{Dedication}
+   ...
+   \frontelement{Abstract}
+   ...
+\end{frontmatter}
+\begin{bodymatter}
+   \chapter{...}
+   ...
+\end{bodymatter}
+\begin{appendices}
+   \appendix{...}
+   ...
+\end{appendices}
+\begin{backmatter}  %  short for "other back matter"
+   \backelement{Glossary}
+   ...
+   \backelement{Notes}
+   ...
+\end{backmatter}
+\end{verbatim}
+%  Perhaps \oneappendix{...} could be substituted for
+%     \begin{appendices}
+%     \appendix{...}
+%     ...
+%     \end{appendices}
+%  if there is only one appendix.
+
+\subsubsection*{Note}
+
+The above example assumes that, for \LaTeX\ purposes:
+\begin{itemize}
+\item it will generally be sufficient to think in terms of ``front matter
+      elements'' and ``back matter elements''
+\item it will not be appropriate to go for complete analogy with the AAP's
+      SGML DTD.  Thus, one would not expect typical \LaTeX\ 3.0 software to
+      define environments like \verb+\acknowledgements+: if \LaTeX\ 3,0 gets
+      used as a back-end for an SGML system, the AAP's \verb+<ack>+ would
+      get converted to \verb+\frontelement{Acknowledgements}+.  (However, if
+      any elements required special treatment, particular environments could
+      be defined for them, as is done in \LaTeX\ 2.09 with {\tt abstract}.)
+\end{itemize}
+
+\subsection{Bonuses from using structures influenced by Chicago/AAP}
+
+\subsubsection{Conference proceedings}
+
+A document with structure based on SER-1 will naturally support ``a
+reference-list at the end of each chapter'' plus the option of a composite
+bibliography at the end of the document (for which one sometimes sees
+in requests in electronic digests from editors of conference proceedings).
+
+Because the structure is appropriate, there should be less conflict than if
+one is (for example) mis-using the 2.09 {\tt book} structure.  One
+shouldn't end up trying to have {\tt thebibliography} at both 2.09
+``section'' level and at ``chapter'' level, because the ``references at end
+of article'' and ``bibliography at end of complete work'' units would have
+different definitions.  For \BibTeX, one could envisage a scheme involving
+perhaps {\tt article1.bbl}, \dots\ , {\tt article}$N${\tt .bbl}, {\tt
+backmatter.bbl}.
+
+\subsubsection{Page selection}
+
+Such an analysis would lead naturally to schemes for using the \verb+\count+s
+sensibly, so as to support:
+\begin{itemize}
+\item distinction between roman and arabic numbered pages (i.e., front
+      matter and main text)
+\item selection of ``all the front matter'', a whole chapter, a whole appendix,
+      or ``all the (non-appendix) back matter''.
+\end{itemize}
+For example, one might have:
+\begin{center}
+\begin{footnotesize}
+\begin{tabular}{lllll}
+\hline\hline
+Major division & Minor divisions&\verb+\count0+&\verb+\count1+&\verb+\count2+\\
+\hline\hline
+Front matter   &                & page-number  & {\tt -1}    &  {\tt 0}  \\
+\hline
+Main text      &   chapters     & page-number  & chapter-number  & {\tt 0} \\
+               &                &              & {\tt 1, 2, ... }&         \\
+\hline
+Back matter:            & appendices    &page-number&appendix number& {\tt 1}\\
+appendices              &               &           & {\tt 1, 2, ... }& \\
+\hline
+Back matter:   & glossary          & page-number&{\tt -2}   &  {\tt 0}  \\
+other units    & bibliography      &            &            \\
+               & index, etc.       &            &            \\
+\hline\hline
+\end{tabular}\end{footnotesize}\end{center}
+
+\subsubsection{Generally}
+
+Generally, if a correct analysis of structure is made, practical details
+will tend to fall into place nicely, rather than needing messy {\it ad hoc}
+circumventions.
+
+\section{Modularity}
+
+\subsection{Analysis in general}
+
+Although I've suggested that a Chicago/AAP analysis might provide a suitable
+basis for ``structures to be supported by \LaTeX\ 3.0'':
+\begin{itemize}
+\item any ``\LaTeX\ 3.0 project'' selection of ``the good bits''
+      is unlikely to be perfect
+\item some better analysis may come along, and some successor to the
+      ``\LaTeX\ 3.0 project'' may want to support that analysis rather than
+      one derived from the suggestions given here
+\item people may have to produce ``structure to design'' mappings for
+      structures other than the 3 ``modified AAP'' ones (e.g., legal
+      articles, ISO standards, SGML DTDs other than the 3 AAP ones)
+\item people may produce ``structure to design'' mappings for
+      enhancements of the 3 ``modified AAP'' ones (e.g., a book
+      that contains plates  and maps, if they are to be numbered
+      separately from other illustrations).
+\end{itemize}
+It seems desirable that such possibilities should be borne in mind when any
+software is being written.
+
+\subsection{Structure supported by mapping software}
+
+I think that mapping software (i.e., whatever we call the successors to
+2.09 ``style files'') should make clear the structure that is supported,
+for example:
+\begin{itemize}
+\item by software checks
+\item because the mapping software starts with a comment that defines the
+      structure it supports.
+\end{itemize}
+Then end-users will know (or find out in a friendly way) whether or not
+they can simply ``change design by changing one line of the {\tt tex} file''.
+
+For example:
+\begin{itemize}
+\item a thesis and a Wiley book might have the same structure, so
+      a one-line change to the {\tt tex} file should lead to a change from one
+      design to another (with no change to the structure)
+\item papers in different physics journals will probably have the same
+ structure, so
+      a one-line change to the {\tt tex} file should lead to a change from one
+      journal's design to another's
+\item ISO standards have their own structure.  Someone who tries to apply
+      typesetting software that is intended for a different structure (e.g., an
+      AAP-based structure) should get a sensible error message.
+\end{itemize}
+
+
+
+\begin{thebibliography}{00}
+\addcontentsline{toc}{section}{References}
+\bibitem{lamport}
+     {\sc Leslie Lamport.} {\it LaTeX:  a document preparation system.}
+     Addison-Wesley, 1986.
+\bibitem{chicago}
+     {\it Chicago manual of style.}
+     13th edition.
+     Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982.
+\bibitem{aap}
+     {\it Electronic manuscript preparation and markup: ANSI/NISO Z39.59-1988.}
+     New Brunswick: Transaction publishers, 1991.
+     ISBN 0-88738-945-7.
+\bibitem{majour}
+     {\it DTD for article headers.}
+     Amsterdam: European workgroup on SGML, 1991.
+\bibitem{white}
+     {\sc Jan V. White.}
+     {\it Graphic design for the electronic age.}
+     Watson-Guptill, 1988.
+\bibitem{bs-thesis}
+     {\it Presentation of theses and dissertations.}
+     BS 4821. British Standards Institution, 1990.
+\bibitem{bs-report}
+     {\it Presentation of research and development reports.}
+     BS 4811.  British Standards Institution, 1972.
+\bibitem{tei}
+     {\sc C. M. Sperberg-McQueen and Lou Burnard.}
+     {\it Guidelines for the encoding and interchange of machine-readable
+     texts.}
+     Draft version 1.1.
+     Oxford, Chicago: Text Encoding Initiative, 1990.
+\bibitem{exeter8}
+     {\sc Michael Popham.} {\it Report on inaugural meeting of
+     UK chapter of SGML Users' Group.} Report number 8, SGML project, Exeter
+     University, 1992.
+\bibitem{iso-690}
+     {\it Documentation --- bibliographic references --- content, form and
+     structure.}
+     ISO 690.  International Organization for Standardization, 1987.
+\end{thebibliography}
+
+\end{document}
-- 
cgit v1.2.3

