The Stacks project

Make notation for modules on stacks more uniform

It is possible that these changes make the problem worse!

Explain relationship QCoh different taus

Thanks to anonymous for complaining!
https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/06WN#comment-3189
https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/06WN#comment-3190
https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/07B0#comment-3191
https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/07B1#comment-3192
https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/07AZ#comment-3193
https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/07B0#comment-3202

LaTeX

Introduced a macro

\def\QCoh{{\textit{QCoh}}}

and replaced almost all occurences of \textit{QCoh} by \QCoh. There are
still some places where we use \textit{QCoh}, namely in the chapter
on examples of stacks. This is because the meaning there is different;
it indicates a category fibred in groupoids over Sch and not the notational
gadget that takes a ringed topos and spits out its category of
quasi-coherent modules.

LaTeX: \etale

Introduced the macro

\def\etale{{\acute{e}tale}}

and replaced all occurences of \acute{e}tale by \etale

TAGS: Added new tags

Quasi-coherent modules on lisse-etale

	Category of quasi-coherent modules of an algebraic stack is the
	same as the category of quasi-coherent modules on the
	lisse-etale site of the algebraic stack. This actually clarifies
	some of the earlier constructions, although in the proofs we do
	rely on our earlier work.