LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project


Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
"William F. Hammond" <[log in to unmask]>
Tue, 24 Nov 1998 12:46:52 -0500
text/plain (38 lines)
Robin Fairbairns <[log in to unmask]> writes:

:  . . .              whether the xml bandwaggon, or whatever is
: tomorrow's buzz-word takes out latex altogether, i can't possibly
: guess (though the evidence of the sgml takeover doesn't inspire me to
: assume that xml will do all that much better).

XML is a pseduo-subcategory of the pseudo-category of markup languages
called SGML.

If one wants to keep distinctions between "\phi" and "\Phi", i.e., if
one likes the idea of a case-sensitive flexible command name space on
authoring platforms, then one might not want to dismiss SGML in favor
of XML for use on authoring platforms and in publishing houses.  XML
will, I think, mainly be useful as browser fodder.

The matter of exchange formats is a separate issue.  The matter of
archiving is possibly different from that of exchange.  I think it
unclear whether XML or SGML will win in these arenas.  (It's partly
"policitical".  Some existing exchange formats are simply dreadful.)

It is also the case that much more succinct authoring notation is
possible with SGML.  So much so that one can even make some of these
languages look like LaTeX even though they are not.  This is what lies
behind my idea of GELLMU.  (As Sebastian said, LaTeX markup *can* be
very good.)

Moreover, the extensions of the core wanted by some that the LaTeX3
team does not wish to undertake may also for the most part be
accomplished with SGML-based pre-processing.

Free tools are available.  (See "The SGML Web Page" by Robin Cover at
the URL .)

LaTeX will survive.

                                   -- Bill