[texhax] problem with a defined command

[Victor Ivrii]

On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 5:45 AM, Philip Taylor <P.Taylor at rhul.ac.uk> wrote:

>
>
> Victor Ivrii wrote:
>
> > But more than this: then the author writes an abstract using these
> > macros, then goes somewhere to give a talk and sends this abstract
> > (which does not contain definitions) and the announcement contains lots
> > of \eeq, \beq, \ups, \eps, \alp,
>
>
> Why would any author with even a vestege of sense submit an abstract
> relying on macro definitions that were not included ?
>
> Philip Taylor
>


Because copy-paste is so easy and there is no check-up if an abstract
contains any custom macros.

One can see this on arXiv.org. Here an online a abstract and an abstract
included in article are completely separate but many authors just copy the
former. Until October 2013 an online abstract appeared as a raw code but
now MathJax parses macros in math mode and it covers also abstract to old
papers. One can dig to see how many abstracts contain unprocessed errors
(now at least authors can detect it while submitting) and also text mode
macros. Why one would think that it is a good idea to include them if no
processing is done?

Look at this abstract found after of 5 min of random check:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3141
-- 

Victor Ivrii
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://tug.org/pipermail/texhax/attachments/20140117/0df6719e/attachment.html>