Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!mimsy!oddjob!gargoyle!ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!ccvaxa!hapke
From: hapke@ccvaxa.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.text
Subject: Re: Need help with weirdo format fo
Message-ID: <29400003@ccvaxa>
Date: Thu, 6-Aug-87 09:44:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ccvaxa.29400003
Posted: Thu Aug  6 09:44:00 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 9-Aug-87 10:35:11 EDT
References: <8373@utzoo.UUCP>
Lines: 26
Nf-ID: #R:utzoo.UUCP:8373:ccvaxa:29400003:000:1194
Nf-From: ccvaxa.UUCP!hapke    Aug  6 08:44:00 1987


Henry Spencer answers someone's question:
> > ... So why do the copy
> > editors waste their time adding printers marks to my manuscripts which
> > are already correctly formatted with respect to boldface and italics?
> 
> Probably because their typesetting people are *not* used to working from
> multi-font documents, and the copy editors are (justifiably) worried that
> this will introduce errors.  This is a real and legitimate concern.

Henry is absolutely correct.  In a well-run typesetting office, the typesetter
will stop the job and call in the copy editor if the printer's marks are NOT
in the text.

By and large, most authors are not good at determining when to use boldface,
italic, etc.  Even if the original poster did format the submission correctly,
most authors don't.  The typesetters know this and want to see the copy editor's
marks.

If you are producing text for publication on a computer, there are two ways
to get the entire publishing and editorial staff to hate you.  The first is 
to print everything on a dot matrix printer.  The second is to submit fancy
single-spaced TeX or troff output from your laser printer.

Warren Hapke
  ...ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!hapke