John Rowland Lenton writes:
> I don't mean to interrupt your argument, but maybe you could think of the
> problem the other way round: what would LaTeX3 have to have to make it
> "readable" over the Net?
have you see IBM's techxplorer?
> Could a browser load a program (an applet, if it's Netscape) to read the
> (La)TeX source, process it on-the-fly, and present it using fonts
> something like SciWord does? Most people don't care if their screens
there are several references to projects on
> While I'm at it, I resent you-didn't-go-to-TUG??-and-I-did remarks. And I
I know what you mean, and i apologize for offense. equally, i get
annoyed by people (not you) who say `They keep it to themselves, its
all secret'; if people have the energy, money and time, there *are*
events and publications where TeX is discussed.
I would say with no apology at all that anyone who bothers to
subscribe to this list should expect to see references to TUG
articles. Hands up all those who cant afford $50 a year, or whatever
it is? You'll be saying next you cant afford the LaTeX Graphics