13 Jan
2022
13 Jan
'22
10:24 p.m.
On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 9:06 AM Clem Cole <clemc(a)ccc.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 10:08 AM John P. Linderman <jpl.jpl(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Yea. There's a balance here: the number of people that tweak things because
they can is quite large. and often the tweaks need to be undone because
they look like @#^@^ to the professional typesetter (I guess they'd call
this the publisher these days). There also needs to be some way to flag the
legit "your defaults got this so wrong my readers will trip over this"
bits. That's lacking in Word, for example. I've seen other systems cope
with this to varying degrees of success.
I've used LaTeX for all my professional papers. With the proper style
guides, I can easily transport the words from one style requirement to
another. However, I run into issues all the time when I go from conference
A that has a single column to conference B that has the dual columns of
IEEE. Where diagrams fit and are pleasing to the eye in one, they look
awkward and out of place in the other. Etc. So this ideal one can approach,
but there will always be bits of bricabrack that can't be easily handled by
the automation. While most of the issues can be delegated to the macros,
some manual tweaking is necessary because there are many works that are
more than just a big bag of words with semantic metadata attached.
I never got into troff. It always seemed lower level than LaTeX to me when
I was learning things, and I didn't want to be bothered with those details.
I can read and use it today, but it's not my primary choice unless I'm
tweaking a work already in troff.
Warner
Many of us who wrote articles for the Bell System
Technical Journal would
disagree. The BSTJ publishers could transform something that made sense
when viewed as troff output into unintelligible gibberish. You cannot split
a UNIX command line into multiple lines just because it "looks better".
Sometimes format really matters.
I think that is true for any scheme -- professionals and editors need to
work together. That's what Jon was suggesting. When they don't have
shared vocabulary/goals - bad things can happen. FWIW: I can not speak
for him directly as I never had this conversation with him (Win might
have), but from what I knew/know of Brian Ried I think he might agree with
what I'm suggesting. IMO, *there will always be cases like the one that
you described*. This is not particular to any document compiler system.
The question is how to bring the two sides together and who has the high
order bit?
My complaint with Word and the like, is that the 'control' is hidden.
It's $%^& magic -- why is it indenting here? Hey I did not tell it to make
it go italics ...