Re: getting out of LaTeX


*** T. Winter wrote:
In article <1156878731.998799.86220@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> *** T. Winter wrote:
...
About TeX/LaTeX:

> > And, o, it dates from 1983.
>
> There was a word processor something like that, called Nota Bene. Back
> in the days of DOS 3.1, it was the only one that could handle
> right-to-left text, so it was popular with biblical scholars for a few
> weeks. Some even persisted with it until recently, being content
> without most of the features we take for granted in word processing.

I think that TeX/LaTeX could do a bit more. Like producing camera-ready
copies.

Was it available for personal computers in 1984?

...
> I don't see why any one publication needs to be convertible between
> Springer and AMS style; one never submits a paper to more than one
> journal at a time, and the submitted draft is never identical to the
> published product. (If a peer reviewer can't think of _something_ to
> complain about, they won't feel they've done their job.)
>
> Unless, of course, you are dealing in nothing but camera-ready copy, in
> which case, what's the journal editor's function?

Most mathematics publishers ask for camera-ready copy. And the task

When I was a copyeditor at the Astrophysical Journal (as I have
recounted before), camera-ready copy was abominated, as the typesetters
had difficulty interpreting the tiny marks that were produced by TeX.

for the editor is to read the initial version, assign reviewers to it
and handle the process that follows. And also may state to the writer
that the paper is not suitable for that publication, but that other
publications might use it. In which case just switching the style
sheets works perfectly well.

Mathematicians don't know which is the best journal for their
particular work?

It has to be reoutputted anyway after the referees make their
"suggestions."

.

Quantcast