🚀 go-pugleaf

jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
 > trivedi@curie.uchicago.edu (Anil Trivedi) writes:
 > >                             [... concerning TeXsis ...]
 > >
 > >     *  A \PhysRev style has been added.  This is autoloaded from the
 > >        style file PhysRev.txs.
 > 
 > Does this support output of a 'macro-free' file in the RevTex system now 
 > used by the Physical Review for processing of compuscripts?  The problem 
 > with using other systems for preprints is that the APS will not take 
 > files unless you remove all \def and \input that invoke things not in 
 > their system, and there are real advantages (like no page charges in 
 > Phys Rev C and noticably faster throughput) to the compuscript program. 
 > 
 > Of course, I have found the TeX folks at the APS to be quite good about 
 > improving the features of their macro system, so perhaps some of the 
 > desired features of TeXsis could be requested to make the two compatible. 
 > 
 > BTW - other AIP member societies (AGU, OSA, and AAS) are joining the APS 
 > to develop a joint product with individual style files for each society's 
 > journals, while the AGU and OSA also intend to take meeting abstracts 
 > electronically in this fashion.  Clearly we should expect this to grow 
 > rapidly in the near future.

I should make it clear that while I am quite familiar with TeXsis
and like it, I have no "official" link with it. Serious querries
about TeXsis should be sent to the address given in the announcement:
	texsis@lifshitz.ph.utexas.edu .
(Since TeXsis is aimed at physicists, I had posted the announcement
here, copying it verbatim from comp.text.tex .)

That said, here is what I know and think.

The PhysRev style file offered with TeXsis does reproduce the
PhysRev format. I have not used it, so my impressions are superficial,
but the TeXsis distribution does contain an example illustrating it.

However, as you point out, APS supports only REVTEX at the moment,
which by the way is LaTeX-based and hence incompatible not only
with TeXsis but with *any* other Plain based package.  If you
intend to make an electronic submission to APS, then you have
to use REVTEX for now.

Personally, I believe that APS should follow the example of AMS,
which supports AMS-TeX (Plain-based) and AMS-LaTeX (that speaks for
itself); similarly APS should support both Plain- and LaTeX-based
packages.

This split in the TeX world is an unfortunate consequence of the
fact that (i) Knuth, in his infinite wisdom, saw it fit to leave
out certain critical and practical features from the Plain, trusting
that to the authors of macro packages, and (ii) Ramport, the author
of the first such major macro package that came along,  in *his*
infinite wisdom, saw it fit to make his (LaTeX) incompatible with
Plain TeX.

Hence we have the following situation:
1. Knuth's TeXbook remains the authoritative documentaion on TeX.
2. In the beginning of his LaTeX manual, Ramport says: "... you can
   add new capabilities to LaTeX by using the lower-level commands
   described in The TeXbook." [p.4]
3. And near the end: "A LaTeX command may not work properly when 
   used with Plain TeX commands...There is no easy way to tell
   whether a Plain TeX command will cause trouble...A general rule
   is not to combine..." [p. 204]
Nothing short of idiotic.

(TeXsis avoids such problems by scrupulously remaining a superset
of Plain commands.)

Unfortunate as this Plain-LaTeX split is, it simply is a fact of
life at present and, until some consolidation can occur, users will
be best served if societies such as AMS and APS support both branches.
AMS already does, and APS should follow suit: were it to develop a
Plain-based package, I am sure that TeXsis can play a helpful role.

----