On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 12:24:47AM -0400, Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On 4/25/2014 12:00 AM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> >
> >OTOH, I believe journals nowadays actually give you a LaTeX template
> >that you're supposed to follow, and they greatly frown upon
> >submissions that don't conform to that template. So people are less
> >likely to fiddle with stuff that they normally would otherwise.
> >
>
> I would think basic computing features like text editing, copy/paste,
> and filenames would make trivially short work of conforming to various
> templates upon submission, even for the less technically-inclined.
True, it's quite easy in LaTeX to split your document into multiple
files. One easy way to conform to different templates would be something
like:
publisher_template.tex:
\documentclass{...}
... % whatever the publisher predefined
\input{my_macros.tex}
\begin{document}
\input{content.tex}
\end{document}
readable_template.tex:
\documentclass{...}
... % sane formatting settings here
\input{my_macros.tex}
\begin{document}
\input{content.tex}
\end{document}
my_macros.tex:
... % any additional stuff you want in the preamble,
% like \newcommand's, and so on.
content.tex:
... % put actual article body here
Then running `latex publisher_template.tex` will produce the document to
be submitted, `latex readable_template.tex` will produce a more readable
version.
I'm not sure if your average journal author is savvy enough to set this
up, though. I have the sinking suspicion that probably most of them know
just the bare minimum to make LaTeX produce some output, and don't
really care about doing things in a more sophisticated way.
T
--
Marketing: the art of convincing people to pay for what they didn't need
before which you can't deliver after.
