LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

View:

 Message: [ First | Previous | Next | Last ] By Topic: [ First | Previous | Next | Last ] By Author: [ First | Previous | Next | Last ] Font: Proportional Font

Subject:

Re: portable LaTeX

From:

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 26 Nov 1998 13:13:49 GMT

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

 text/plain (81 lines)
 Marcel Oliver writes:  > So I conclude what I have been trying to say, maybe not so clearly,  > before: We need a standard for portable LaTeX which is necessarily a  > subset of the capabilities of native LaTeX. I think the strongest hmm. if you go this way, you may as well change the syntax, make it < and >, so that what you treat as LaTeX is in fact valid XML.....  > is processed through a TeX backend. Also, this seems more or less  > orthogonal to the goals of LaTeX3, because it is mainly a matter of  > convention, and not of fundamental hacking in the LaTeX the program. now there i agree 100%, as I suspect They will too.  > It is important to keep in mind that most of the documents that we  > academics write don't go via a publisher. These are class notes,  > informal exchanges, short reports, grant proposals etc. Most of these  > are routine, but some are important and significant documents. Thus, my apologies. you ARE right about this. though I could and would argue that people who spend 3 days tarting up the look of their grant proposal don't deserve the grant :-} ...........  > In short, the fact that most publishers cannot accept a carefully  > prepared LaTeX file causes hours of proofreading on a level which is  > below the standard of the submitted document. We have every interest  > to avoid that, and I think that's the same for the publishing  > professions... too right. i think the situation you describe is shocking, and I am ashamed of my profession. seriously.  > > i know i sound like an evangelist, but XML/MathML/SVG really *are*  > > designed to cover this sort of game. your SVG graphic will embed  > > MathML markup cleanly.  >  > Again, are the necessary authoring tools available? Will it allow me  > to easily typeset (!) my personal documents? have you actually *tried* Office 97 to compose your memos? Office 2000 will use VML, I understand. No, I dont use it either, but really, thats what most of the world typeset' with. its not THAT bad quality. .....  > Would it be hard to write a script which takes an eps file, runs it  > through LaTeX/psfrag, and converts the dvi output back into eps with  > the same bounding box (preferably not using bitmapped fonts and  > including only those fonts that are needed)? This way one could meet no. thats what i would do if i was asked to routinely handle psfragged documents.  > Maybe one could even try to implement the equivalent of -Wall into the  > LaTeX engine (or as a package) so that authors could check without ha. interesting idea.  > If someone now says why not SGML then: The advantage of LaTeX from the  > author's point of view is that it is a single platform for authoring,  > typesetting and document exchange (where, I believe, the problems can ah, but see above. is it *so* much harder to type
Introduction
$a+3$  This is fun
than the \ and {}? then you can run this through "LaTeX" as you do now, but it has the benefit of also being XML to validate against a DTD (if you wish). sure, you cannot use \catcode tricks, but you do already accept the idea of a subset dialect. No, you don't have to lose \def entirely. Doug Lovell's TeXML (see http://www.ibm.com/xml) might be of interest to people in this context. My point is that "strict LaTeX" and "XML" are barely inches apart, really. I know They will agree with this too.... Sebastian`