From e0c6872cf40896c7be36b11dcc744620f10adf1d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Norbert Preining 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++ 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