🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Jun27.112938.21202@infoserver.th-darmstadt.de> xitijsch@ddathd21.bitnet (Joachim Schrod) writes:
>In article <rad.678000303@vulcan>, rad@vulcan.anu.edu.au (Robin Davies) writes:
>> For a few purposes TeX output is just too pretty.
>
>I'm just curious: for which purposes?
>
>I just asked because ``pretty'' is (IMHO) the wrong term. A document
>should first be readable. If this readibility is considered pretty, fine!
>   And why does one want to produce an unreadable document? (And in
>fact, the rest of your posting describes a style creating an
>unreadable document!)

"Unreadable" to you, perhaps.  A lot of editors, however, can't stand
receiving a typeset manuscript.  They WANT the doublespaced lines, the
fixed pitch font, the ragged lines.  Partly so they can do word estimates
(it doesn't seem to matter if you tell them how many words there are)
and so they can do corrections.  That's why Joachim was asking for a
"manuscript.sty" file...

-- 
Eric Giguere                                       giguere@csg.UWaterloo.CA
           Unlike the cleaning lady, I have to do Windows.