LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project


Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Roozbeh Pournader <[log in to unmask]>
Mon, 9 Nov 1998 21:06:07 +0330
Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
text/plain (82 lines)
Sebastian wrote:

> the mass users use Microsoft software. Internet Explorer 5 renders XML
> natively

I can't understand, XML is good or bad? If it is good, why does Microsoft
support it?! ;)

> > Are splendid quality
> > free renderers available for poor students using Linux?
> yes, of course. the renderer is TeX!

A small misunderstanding from my part, I think.  Are you asking to change
LaTeX input syntax to become SGML-compatible (or XML-compatible), and write
SGML directly in it, or you are speaking of a complete
(i.e., fully complete) support for equivalents of SGML things in LaTeX
and a convertor from SGML to LaTeX?

> i dont want it to write, i want it to take
> <client id='foo'>stuff</client> and
> turn it into typeset pages, with the instruction that the contents of
> <client> should be represented as a list item object

Aha, good. I agree.  Specially when Internet users are getting more
happy with those SGML languages, this could be a great advance for
TeX to the open public, where others can use it easily.
But what about a math interface, which a big part of TeX community
are users of? Please don't speak of MathML, ok? ;)
I don't like neither those <mrow> things which look unnecessary,
nor putting <mo></mo> or <mi></mi> around every math atom. All
these, also make my files very large.

> the text may be *stored* as <texttt>ggg</texttt>, that does not follow
> that your editor will show exactly that.

Ok, but I like my editor to exactly show <texttt> things, because
I will freely chosse my editor, ranging from things like emacs, to smaller
editors like joe or my favourite one in DOS (!), i.e., Turbo Pascal (!).
And in this level I like readability.  Some enhancements that
make typing easier are really welcome, or color renderings, like gray
comments etc.

> you are from Iran - do you want to type Farsi (excuse me if
> wrong) in ASCII encoding for the rest of your life?  or type on your
> local keyboard and see the glyphs on the screen? [1]
> ...
> [1] ok so you probably use a latin alphabet :-} but you see what i mean

It was interesting for me to hear of Persian language (We say
`Farsi' in Persian, and say `Persian' in English.)
What I currently do, is typing Persian using local keyboard
in an editor my colleagues in the FarsiTeX project have written,
and then give the file to TeX to produce the output using some
modified LaTeX and some class files which are both done by myself.
I have never (well, hardly ever ;) used Latin alphabet for
coding Persian.

My main goal is to make the editor part as simple as possible, so
the user can use it on any simple system with any simple O/S. The everyday
user doesn't like loading a big editor for simple tasks such as
typing a memo, which previously could be done using old dear `vi'.
Got it?

Also, someone who has grown up with TeX input language,
loves the input syntax. :)
(Maybe I am a record holder, since I have been a TeX user
since 15 years old, and a TeX programmer since 17.)

> oh sure, agreed on that, writing style files will be better. but who
> wants to write different style files for every renderer....

I agree.  If you wanna unite the electronic publishing world, it's
a great goal, I'm with you. But I'm not hopeful.  Other parts of the
world are not as intelligent as European Community who got united.
Specially, U.S. government and Iranian government can't bear
each other :))))  (Also, TeX and Word, Linux and NT, ...)

Apart from these, I agree with your general idea now, but I
should think more.