LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project


Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
From: William F Hammond <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 12:24:00 -0400
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (31 lines)
Joachim Schrod <[log in to unmask]> writes:

> As much as I respect James, I can only agree with him here on a very
> very abstract level. With "style sheets" above I didn't mean
> transforming XML to other markup languages, I meant *directly*
> typesetting XML documents, with a *very* high quality, and including

I view my xml -> latex step as translation of a markup language to a
typesetting language and, correspondingly, view the sgmlspl script for
it as the functional equivalent of a "style sheet".  I don't see why
it matters that the step from xml document to dvi or pdf is a pipeline
that uses (pdf)latex.

> ... sheet front has not stopped here and will continue after the XML
> hype is gone.

I'm not sure what you mean by xml hype.  Not all xml document types
are document markup languages; for example, ctan-catalogue-entry is
not a markup but is structured data.  Authors who want re-useable
source should use an xml document type that is a document markup
language.  The difference between that and present LaTeX is that the
author's content is then stored under a template for generalized
processing and is, therefore, (if the document type is good) maximally
re-useable.  Moreover, it is possible to determine in a format
independent way if such a document instance is technically correct.

Good LaTeX markup can come very close to meeting that criterion, but
it's very hard to define just what good LaTeX markup is.

                                    -- Bill