## LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

 Options: Use Classic View Use Monospaced Font Show Text Part by Default Show All Mail Headers Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

 Re: XML vs. (La)TeX markup William F Hammond <[log in to unmask]> Sun, 20 Jul 2003 13:59:47 -0400 text/plain (28 lines) Torsten Bronger <[log in to unmask]> writes: > > and be prepared to see users violate markup to get the appearence > > they want: if there is something that users see rendered as > > "bold", there will be users that use it as "bold" regardless of > > what the intended meaning is! > You're right, and this is one of the problems I have with DocBook. > (In DocBook, there really absolutely is no bold at all.) I would > allow bold, but there still are guidelines and the program could > deploy annoying warning windows whenever you use it. ;-) I agree that "bold" (alternatively "strong") should be regarded as an abstract style container along with "emph" and a suitable content-level markup should provide both. Moreover, "emph" should be of order 2 (as in LaTeX) while "bold" should either be idempotent or of unbounded order. ("\bf" -- as opposed to "\bold" -- refers to a font, and that does not belong in content-level markup.) > I don't say that the incoming journal article needn't be edited by > the publisher, but it would be much less work than it is now. A good content-level markup under XML should sail right past the editor insofar as markup is concerned, provided that the editor is equipped with a suitable array of formatting tools.                                     -- Bill