Martin Hensel <[log in to unmask]> writes:
> Sorry, I don't see your point. My conviction is that the current LaTeX
> syntax can be improved with regard to legibility.
Legibility is in the eye of the beholder. To say that your issues
were addressed is not to say they were addressed in your way.
> As far as I
> understand GELLMU, this project tries to use the LaTeX syntax to
> produce HTML documents,
Really, _any_ XML document type. It's usually a waste of time to
write HTML directly though it can be done and using gellmu to do so
provides the advantage of macros with arguments.
The point of an XML document type for authors is to be able to
translate well to many other formats under a standard translation
umbrella. An author should seek to occupy high ground in the land of
markup languages. HTML is low ground for an author.
> with improving the LaTeX syntax. Maybe you can point me to the correct
For example, look at the source (suffix ".glm") of the manual in
> > That said, I would not propose to change the syntax of LaTeX itself
> > unless it might be in conjunction with the introduction in LaTeX of
> > \documenttype parallel to \documentclass.
> I'm not sure if you mean document type in the same sense as GELLMU
Presently gellmu article source goes through a two-stage pipeline to
produce an XML document that is slightly pre-formatted (see appendix
B.2.2 in the manual). Then a translation to LaTeX is obtained from
that. It might be possible to have a future LaTeX engine handle
gellmu article source for a more direct route to dvi or pdf.