Springer LaTex2e macros
Andrei Demekhov
Does the LaTeX2e version of Springer verlag packages exists?
Please send e-mail cc:
Andrei
--
Andrei G. Demekhov
E-mail: and...@appl.sci-nnov.ru
Frederick H Bartlett
Yes, but they'd rather you didn't use it. LaTeX 2.09 is more efficient, more
stable, and less flexible.
They are available via the WWW at http://www.springer-ny.com
Why is it an advantage to be less flexible? Because the whole point of having a
style file, from a publisher's point of view, is to force authors to make their
books fit a standard. It is easier for authors to do stupid things in LaTeX2e
than LaTeX 2.09 -- and they do!
So save yourself (and, more importantly, the publisher!) some time and
aggravation and use LaTeX 2.09.
You may contact Springer at tex...@springer-ny.com
Fred
(These are not official Springer sentiments, but only mine -- although I do have a
connexion with Springer.)
Marcel Oliver
> Yes, but they'd rather you didn't use it. LaTeX 2.09 is more efficient, more
> stable, and less flexible.
>
> They are available via the WWW at http://www.springer-ny.com
>
> Why is it an advantage to be less flexible? Because the whole point of having a
> style file, from a publisher's point of view, is to force authors to make their
> books fit a standard. It is easier for authors to do stupid things in LaTeX2e
> than LaTeX 2.09 -- and they do!
I fail to see your point. LaTeX 2.09 is quite deficient in
its mathematical typesetting capabilities. So what to you do
to typeset mathematics with 2.09? You write your own little
hacks, because you want professional looking output. Just
one example: The spacing in the eqnarray environment is
unbearable and cries out for user modification.
Then came AMSLaTeX version 1.1 to go with LaTeX 2.09.
Now you were given a documented way of doing what you
always wanted to do, but on the cost of stability. AMSLaTeX
1.1 requires an early version of the NFSS, so gone is
the "standard", "stable" 2.09. Moreover, it contains
a number of bugs, incompatibilities to the current version
of AMSLaTeX (it would be a nightmare to convert any of
my current files which work with LaTeX2e/AMSLaTeX 1.2 back
to the earlier versions), and is not supported anymore.
Finally, with LaTeX2e and AMSLaTeX 1.2 there is a system
which satisfies (almost) all my mathematical typesetting
needs with documented (!) features. Although it might
be easier to customize LaTeX2e, there is a decreased need
for doing so. If Springer has a problem with authors
using non-standard features, then it is most probably
due to missing, bad, or inaccessible documentation and
author instructions.
> So save yourself (and, more importantly, the publisher!) some time and
> aggravation and use LaTeX 2.09.
What??? Can you imagine the mess of going back from
a running, standard, stable LaTeX version to some ancient
version which was installed back in the '80s by
someone who has long since disappeared, been modified
by successive system administrators 10 times
and is incompatible with every single document
you have on your disk???
David Carlisle
In article <3295AE4F...@appl.sci-nnov.ru>
Andrei Demekhov <and...@appl.sci-nnov.ru> writes:
From: Andrei Demekhov <and...@appl.sci-nnov.ru>
Does the LaTeX2e version of Springer verlag packages exists?
Not as far as I know. You should complain to Springer that they are still
asking authors to submit documents using unsupported, obsolete
versions of the LaTeX software.
David
Timothy Murphy
Frederick H Bartlett <fb...@sprynet.com> writes:
>Yes, but they'd rather you didn't use it. LaTeX 2.09 is more efficient, more
>stable, and less flexible.
As in: "The condition of Queen Victoria is stable" ?
--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: t...@maths.tcd.ie
tel: +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
Frederick H Bartlett
David Carlisle <carl...@ma.man.ac.uk> writes: > In article <3295AE4F...@appl.sci-nnov.ru>
However, Springer actively discourages authors from using LaTeX2e, because (a)
it gives authors too many options and (b) it's much too slow.
My own major beefs are with the unnecessarily rococo font selection scheme, which
imposes an inane amount of overhead on TeX's processing, and the float processing,
which fails to automatically do what I so easily do in plain TeX: automatically
set floats at the tops and bottoms of pages (as most publishers require), depending
on where on the page the float is called and whether or not there's a head on
that page. (Floats should appear below their citations and within the division of
the document in which they're cited.)
Fred
Frederick H Bartlett
t...@maths.tcd.ie (Timothy Murphy) writes:
> Frederick H Bartlett <fb...@sprynet.com> writes:
>
> >Yes, but they'd rather you didn't use it. LaTeX 2.09 is more efficient, more
> >stable, and less flexible.
>
> As in: "The condition of Queen Victoria is stable" ?
>
>
The point of view is, basically, that authors cannot be trusted to make intelligent
design decisions. There are exceptions, of course ...
But how many truly ugly books have you seen created with TeX?
As an American taxpayer, too, I feel that my tax money, which pays for the grants
that support most of the research that is eventually written up in books typeset
by TeX, is far better used to support a scientist's professional research rather
than his amateur typography.
Fred
David Carlisle
> Yes, but they'd rather you didn't use it. LaTeX 2.09 is more
> efficient, more stable, and less flexible.
`stable' is a strange word to use. LaTeX2.09 is no more or less stable
than (say) the June 1994 LaTeX release. Neither will change ever, but
both had bugs, and as is usual software practice once the bugs were
fixed the date on the software was incremented.
David
Andrei Demekhov
Andrei Demekhov wrote:
>
> Does the LaTeX2e version of Springer verlag packages exists?
>
I have written to Springer and got the reply that...
"Currently quite a few adaptions of elder styles and new developments of
LaTeX2e classes are in the pipeline.
Hopefully there are first releases at the end of this year."
Andrei
David Carlisle
> They do exist; look at http://www.springer-ny.com and follow the links.
I found them later, thanks. (and sent some comments by mail) You could
try telling Springer Germany that they exist, they denied any
knowledge of any LaTeX support when I last contacted them a few months
back.
> However, Springer actively discourages authors from using LaTeX2e,
This is just plain wrong.
LaTeX 2.09 is obsolete, it's manual was taken out of print in 1993 and
encouraging the use of such unsuppored software is not only misguided,
it is positively harmful to one of the main aims of LaTeX which is to
provide a standard portable document format.
Springer does not even use the old 2.0 standard; it uses the NFSS1
extensions which were never standard so always introduced portability
problems, and continuing to distribute NFSS1 after the authors have
asked for it not to be used, and removed it from the TeX archives is
immoral in my opinion.
> ... complaints about float handling compared to plain TeX...
Some of which are valid but all are irrelevant to the point at issue
as the float handling in 2.09 was much worse. there were many bugs
in that area that got fixed, years ago. If you insist on using the
old unsupported code then you get what you deserve.
> (Floats should appear below their citations and within the division of
> the document in which they're cited.)
Unlike 2.09, Standard LaTeX has provides a supported mechanism for
ensuring floats come after their citation: the flafter package in the
base distribution.
David
Prof Brian Ripley
Frederick H Bartlett wrote:
>
> As an American taxpayer, too, I feel that my tax money, which pays for the grants
> that support most of the research that is eventually written up in books typeset
> by TeX, is far better used to support a scientist's professional research rather
> than his amateur typography.
>
Agreed. Which is why it is better to ask him/her to use a standard
package, LaTeX,
not LaTeX2.09 with flaky extensions, which will (from personal
experience)
waste a lot of time.
Spoken as a Springer NY author who has typeset a book for them in
LaTeX2e (as was) back in 1994,
with several revisions since. (I did this by supplying PostScript.) On
the
other hand I have since published a book with Cambridge University Press
who are
well able to use current LaTeX, so publishers do differ in their
enlightenment.
I recall Mr Bartlett's name from discussions with Springer NY, so
suspect that he
has an undeclared interest here.
--
Brian D. Ripley, Email: rip...@stats.ox.ac.uk
Professor of Applied Statistics, Home page
http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~ripley/
University of Oxford, Tel: +44 1865 272861 (self)
1 South Parks Road, +44 1865 272860 (secr)
Oxford OX1 3TG, UK Fax: +44 1865 272595
J van Hamel
Frederick H Bartlett (fb...@sprynet.com) wrote:: >
: > >Yes, but they'd rather you didn't use it. LaTeX 2.09 is more efficient, more
: > >stable, and less flexible.
: >
: > As in: "The condition of Queen Victoria is stable" ?
: >
: >
: Cute, but no. As in, "there are far fewer options available to confuse the author."
: The point of view is, basically, that authors cannot be trusted to make intelligent
: design decisions. There are exceptions, of course ...
: But how many truly ugly books have you seen created with TeX?
The one that comes to mind first is
`Commutative Algebra' written by David Eisenbud,...
: As an American taxpayer, too, I feel that my tax money, which pays for the grants
: that support most of the research that is eventually written up in books typeset
: by TeX, is far better used to support a scientist's professional research rather
: than his amateur typography.
: Fred
... but apparently typeset by Springer's professional typographers.
Or am I wrong?
Joost van Hamel
Arthur Ogawa
David Carlisle wrote:
>
> Fred Barlett wrote:
> > However, Springer actively discourages authors from using LaTeX2e,
>
> This is just plain wrong.
Fred, I am disappointed to see that a publisher would "actively
discourage" authors from using LaTeX2e and would instead send them down
the primrose path to a LaTeX 2.09 package at this late date.
You have made a number of technical points, and they can be and are
being debated, but quite apart from these, may I mention
1. Many authors have already adopted LaTeX2e, so Springer Verlag is
placing themselves in an inferior position to acquire these authors.
In fact, I expect that the typical book author now has abandoned LaTeX
2.09 in favor of LaTeX2e.
2. By attempting to divert an author from using LaTeX (by retro-decree,
LaTeX 2.09 is not longer "LaTeX") Springer Verlag is placing themselves
in the position of appearing to being technically behind the times.
Springer Verlag should ask themselves if they want to be perceived this
way, particularly among the authorship they are trying to attract to
their lists.
3. The technical concerns you raised imply that Springer Verlag is
burdening the author with the composition of their book. This is not an
unknown practice (I believe it was pioneered by Addison-Wesley: both the
TeXbook and the LaTeX manual are author-composed books).
But I think that authors understand that there are still publishers out
there who allow the author to focus on content and organization of his
or her book and who provide the author with services like proofreading
and (TeX-based) composition.
These authors must recognize (when they are peddling their books to
publishers) that the sort of deal they are offered at Springer Verlag
may be significantly inferior to something they might get from another
publisher.
They will be inclined to go elsewhere; Springer Verlag is unleveling the
playing field to their own disadvantage.
By the way, you fail to mention in your post that you are an employee of
Springer Verlag, and your return address at CompuServe does little to
remedy the lacuna. Am I just behind the times concerning your
employment? Are your opinions representative of official policy at
Springer Verlag?
--
Arthur Ogawa/TeX Consultants
voice: +1 209 561-4585 Fax: +1 209 561-4584
mailto:og...@teleport.com
http://www.teleport.com/~ogawa
ftp://ftp.teleport.com/users/ogawa
PGP key: finger -l og...@teleport.com
Gerd Kamp
Ialso complained to Springer some time ago. Recently i met somebody from
Springer at a conference. He was telling me that they had working betas
for LNCS for some time and that they are in the process of releasing them.
Last week I checked and only the betas were available. Before replying
this to the Springer LaTeX 2e thread i rechecked and
as the LateX2e classes for LNCS (Lecture Notes in Computer Science ) are
now officially released and available from
http://www.springer.de/author/tex/help-tex.html
At least they should be available. I was unable to connect to the gopher
server where the actual class files resides. But this should be a minor
problem :-)
Gerd
--
Gerd Kamp, ka...@informatik.uni-hamburg.de, Fon: +49 40 5494 - 2614