Will Robertson wrote:

> On 11/08/2009, at 6:01 PM, J.Fine wrote:
>
> > There are some interesting ideas here, but why implement them in TeX
> > macros?  How will you translate LaTeX documents into XML?
> >
> > Surely to do this you will need a LaTeX->XML translator written in /
> > some other language/.  And once you have that, why do you need an
> > implementation written in TeX macros?
>
> Simple: I prefer to write in LaTeX than in XML. I have yet to see an
> XML dialect I wish to write by hand; I originally thought Gellmu was
> similar to such a thing, but I've yet to fully understand -- through
> lack of time -- the relationship between SGML/XML and the Gellmu syntax.

My suggestion allows you to write in LaTeX, or a similar syntax.  I'm not suggesting you author directly in XML.

As you point out, Gellmu takes this sort of approach.  I suggest you explore it before spending further time on the TeX macro route, in case it provides something better.

> Also, xparse will be used for LaTeX2e documents and packages as well,
> which are very much rooted to the TeX world.

This is a good point, but must be balanced against the awfulness of programming in TeX macros.

> It's not clear to me what is the best way to approach the problem of
> HypotheticalLaTeX3 to XML. Half of me wants the XML to be generated
> from LaTeX macros as they expand, \write-ing the necessary structural
> information and transforming the input text as the document is typeset
> to PDF. But that's mostly just a silly idea.

I want documents that can be readily converted to XML.  This is a future requirement for me.  TeX macros is not.

--
Jonathan


The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an exempt charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in Scotland (SC 038302).