Hello
If it's of any interest, I have been using TeX for many years now to produce
OUP humanities publications (Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, recent
fascicules of the Medieval Latin Dictionary from British Sources [British
Academy but published by OUP], and dozens of monographs in the field of
Greek and Latin, with occasional forays into Hebrew and Arabic). XeTeX has
been a great boon but I have always stayed clear of LaTeX flavours, for
various reasons - initially, if I can recall with any accuracy my thoughts
of 15 years ago or more, because it was at that time rather inflexible (I'm
sure I remember a handbook which stated that it was so difficult to adjust
the \baselineskip that those preparing their theses in LaTeX should request
a dispensation from the normal rule of double spacing).
However, I only occasionally do naked typesetting, as it were, and am
normally employed as copy-editor-cum-typesetter, so that I receive
word-processed files (almost inevitably in Word these days) and work on them
as I see fit, producing PDFs at the end of the process for the manufacturing
printer to work with. I have some very elaborate Word macros set up (barely
comprehensible to me!) to convert Word italic into {\it ....\/}, footnotes
into {\fn{....}} etc. (I have double braces round my footnotes for reasons
that I won't go into), and it all works reasonably smoothly - certainly
Greek is a breeze now that I don't have to convert everything to WordPerfect
5.1 and then into a rebarbative transliteration system, as I did when using
pure ASCII-based EmTeX.
Interestingly, OUP have recently started requesting my source files (viz.
.TEX files) for achiving when I hand over the PDFs of a completed job,
though I'm not sure what use they could ever make of them. I guess their
idea is that they might be able to introduce corrections, extra
bibliography, etc. for future editions in-house, but I rather think that
with my volumes they will be stumped, particularly after I'm
institutionalized, buried, or executed for letting through too many typos.
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gareth Hughes" <garzoh...@gmail.com>
To: "Unicode-based TeX for Mac OS X and other platforms" <xetex@tug.org>
Sent: 22 October 2010 15:42
Subject: Re: [XeTeX] (Xe)LaTeX output in a non-(Xe)LaTeX scholarly community
McCollum, Adam wrote:
Dear list members,
I realize that for publications in math and the sciences using TeX,
etc. has been common, and perhaps even strongly encouraged or
required, for many years. It is, alas, not yet at least, so in the
humanities generally. Thanks to XeLaTeX's ability to work well with
non-Latin scripts, it is perhaps becoming better known in the fields
in which I work (Semitic and other eastern languages), but it is
still somewhat of a surprise, I think, to find colleagues who hear
"LaTeX" and do not respond with, "What?"! I am writing to ask for
some thoughts on the predicament of using and enjoying XeLaTeX in my
work, but not really being able to employ it for anything that will
be published, since essentially every publisher wants only a .doc or
.rtf file.
Dear Adam,
Yes, we're in the same predicament: effectively, all potential
publishers want .doc files for submissions. This is useful for the
publisher who wants to let a copy editor play around with the text so
that it meets the house style. Most of the editors in the humanities
wouldn't know what to do with a .tex source file. So, publishers want an
easily editable source file, then they use professional typesetting
software and fonts to produce a PDF for printing. Having worked on
publications through OUP, I think this is the way most of these things
work. If you send a publisher a PDF, they can't edit it (easily and
neatly), they can't easily change your cheap fonts for their expensive
ones, and they can't easily change the layout of the page to book size
with crop marks etc.
There are tools for producing .rtf files from TeX sources, but they're
not nice, particularly because they don't usually understand all the
commands you're using. If you've gone to all the trouble of producing a
good TeX source, why ruin it by trying to squish it into a flaky .rtf?
This could be useful to give the copy editor a visual PDF alongside an
editable .rtf. Either publishers work out how to handle .tex source
files, or they allow authors to do most of the setting themselves (which
latter is what happened with Donald Knuth as far as I recall), or they
let us do it. Somehow I can't see publishers agreeing to send us
hundreds of pounds worth of professional fonts and stand down the
professional typesetters.
It's certainly worth talking with publishers about the problem. Even
though we're traditionally responsible for the text and they for the
context, it has always been a matter of negotiation and compromise. In
the end, the publisher wants something that looks good and fitting and
makes them money. If we can encourage them to work with us using TeX by
showing them the improved results, that's probably the way to move
ahead. Because, I've got all these journal articles in front of me,
published by publishers who specialise in our field, but the errors and
general clumsiness are glaring.
Gareth.
--------------------------------------------------
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
--------------------------------------------------
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
