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
Hans Aberg <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Sun, 6 Dec 1998 12:16:02 +0100
text/plain (35 lines)
At 08:48 -0500 1998/12/05, Y&Y Inc. wrote:
>... it is a fantasy world where
>more than a handful of people use *ML at all, and a fantasy world where this
>does something suitable for WWW viewing and simpler types of printing
>just IMHO, of course.

I used *ML as a collective term for those various ML's: Then a lot already
use HTML, and this will be replaced XML if now Netscape and Microsoft and
those will implement it on their WWW-browsers.

The question is though if they are only markups how they should be on the
one hand be able to become authoring languages -- writing math in WYSIWYG
or *ML is hopeless, because it is difficult to make the code consistent:
This is where this wish for macros comes in, but macros are too naive for
sophisticated authoring outputs. So one still needs some kind of language
that the author can use.

And one the other hand, the question is how one should be able to indicate
details about the graphical output: The idea must be that the author
indicates as exactly as possible the information intended in every part of
the manuscript. So sometimes it may be very detailed, and other times less

>By the way, Chuck Bigelow once ran a contest for the stupidest remark on
>comp.fonts.  There was no shortage of competitors.  Strangely the awardees
>where not at all pleased...

Such negativism is probably a good way to spread frustations that get in
the way of more constructive developments.

  Hans Aberg
                  * Email: Hans Aberg <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
                  * Home Page: <>
                  * AMS member listing: <>