[texhax] problem with a defined command

Victor Ivrii vivrii at gmail.com
Fri Jan 17 17:07:40 CET 2014

On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Philip Taylor <P.Taylor at rhul.ac.uk> wrote:

> OK, so, having lied to my system as to what the file is called
> and unpacked it, the abstract typesets perfectly, as does the
> rest of the paper.  So I'm not sure what conclusions I am meant
> to draw.  Was the author asked to submit the abstract separately,
> and if so, did he fail to include all required macros, or does
> the problem lie with the Arxiv system (i.e., can it process only
> a subset of the commands used in the author's document) ?

arXiv checks if the source compiles on their system (currently TeXLive 2011
which costed me some time debugging as puenc.def in 20111 is much smaller
than in 2013) and one cannot submit paper if it does not

Online abstract is completely separate (a TeX source can have its own
abstract but it is not extracted) but many authors just copy and paste from
tex source into html form. It is what I am talking all the time and what
many publisher complain).


Victor Ivrii
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://tug.org/pipermail/texhax/attachments/20140117/74cca3d0/attachment.html>

More information about the texhax mailing list