With regrets that this response is not briefer... On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, Paul Taylor wrote:
Does anyone know of another journal that publishes primarily in DVI?
Many electronic journals in mathematics post dvi files. Like TAC, most of these post, and also archive, all of dvi, ps and pdf. TAC's policy on dvi has evolved since 1995. That policy will continue to change, no doubt at a slower rate than some would wish. None of us knows what the digital world will look like in 10 years, but careful choices made for TAC over a dozen years ago have been validated.
Maybe Bob Rosebrugh could tell us how many downloads there have been in the various formats from the main TAC web site at MTA.
Inevitably nowadays, most of the web traffic on sites like TAC's is for caching, so such figures for any TAC site mean nothing. If Paul's counts record human usage, then what is surprising is how many of the downloads were *not* pdf. ...
Why does he create so much inconvenience for TAC authors for such a trivial benefit to himself?
This request (for a single source file) is seen as, at worst, a trivial inconvenience by most authors, and it simplifies the lives of editors who volunteer their time and knowledge. Note that TAC's submission requirements for authors describe what we would like to see. Sometimes we don't. We are grateful on the many occasions when authors comply. In practice, TAC editors are flexible and are working with authors who gladly cooperate in publishing a visually pleasing article. We much prefer diagrams based on xypic, but a glance at recent numbers shows that leeway is available. ...
It would appear that they are still trying to impose this standard.
Paul has made a heroic search for a conspiracy, but, alas, has not found one. I don't particularly remember writing the sentence he quotes from early 1990, and hadn't heard of his diagram package back then. My 1990 suggestion was not motivated by an intention to exclude him 15 years later. The misperception of malice is regretted. Bob Rosebrugh