LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project


Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sebastian Rahtz <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Thu, 2 Oct 1997 14:22:10 +0100
text/plain (32 lines)
 > Sounds to me like things would be much better if applications stuck to
 > standard PostScript.  Is that too much to ask?  What's to stop
 > applications from abusing the PDF format?

PS is a programming language, PDF isnt. hence the difference in the
meaning of `standard'. *I* don't know how to abuse PDF, but I
certainly know how to write bad PS...

 > at least initially.  The question is, where do we go from here?  After
 > preaching to the choir, we must first get everyone to agree to abide by
 > a future standard, and then implement that standard, both as quickly as
 > possible.
talk to Michael Downes, David Carlisle, Taco Hoekwater, me, and Patrick,
and get copies of their extended markup specification for, eg,
frontmatter and citation. then do an analysis and suggest a superset.
merge in the markup of all other journal styles you can locate.

the best way to achieve change is to make a concrete suggestion of
what you want done. just saying `lets talk' gets nowhere. Frank and
his gang at 2e need *concrete* specifications, not just a manifesto.

 > especially with the internals of LaTeX2e.  In other words, I would be
 > happy to contribute as a programmer, but fear that there are others who

programming is the least of it. draft a document outlining proposed
changes and additions to the standard `article' markup, and discuss
the applicaability of that. only when the markup is agreed does anyone
need to try and implement it. hacking something, or worrying whether
something is technically possible, is entirely the wrong way to start...