Redesign of dlang.org

[H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d]

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.