LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for LATEX-L Archives


LATEX-L Archives

LATEX-L Archives


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

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

LATEX-L Home

LATEX-L Home

LATEX-L  November 1998

LATEX-L November 1998

Subject:

Re: What is "base" LaTeX

From:

Sebastian Rahtz <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Tue, 24 Nov 1998 12:49:23 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (132 lines)

Marcel Oliver writes:
 > Sorry, I think the discussion is going in circles.  What's the point
 > then to improve LaTeX if I should author in XML?  I don't give a damm what
so that the typesetting is nicer

 > typesetting system I use, as long as it is widely available, at least
 > as powerful as LaTeX is, and it doesn't cost me any more effort to
 > author documents (after a reasonable initial learning period).
how about separating typesetting from editing and manipulation? its
not the only paradigm

 > So should we improve LaTeX?  Just as a backend to an XML based system
 > it wouldn't be worth doing anything more than removing a few quirks from
 > the TeX engine.  So what are we doing here???
do you think LaTeX does floats and multiple columns perfectly? I
dont. I think it can improve a lot as a batch formatter

 > Why can the AMS get my files on paper without retyping, and a huge
 > big-budget operation like Elsevier can't?
cos the AMS use TeX to typeset. why dont Elsevier's typesetters?
why dont we watch Betamax videos?
....

 > But paper is the only thing you can do better than I can.  I can run
 > a web-site with no problem and publish my stuff in whatever format I
 > like.
indeed. if this is the world model you (the academics) want, go for
it. i have no shares in publishers....

 > > nightmare, since almost anything can happen. maybe it takes 5 minutes,
 > > maybe it takes 5 hours. you cannot run a business on those lines, IMO.
 >
 > Why don't you make the converter free software?  Then you can go and
 > tell everyone to check first if a file is convertable before submitting
 > it.  You should get a much better quota than 50% this way.
three reasons:
 1. if people cannot read Lamport and get the basic markup right, you
     think they'll bother to test my converter?
 2. at present, our converter is slightly complex to install, and we
     cannot afford to `support' it externally
 3. we *are* a business. we dont want to hand solutions out to other
    companies _quite_ so easily

but i take the point

that said, the principles of the conversion are explained
publicly, and you can (these days) write a better one using TeX4ht
or Omega (IMHO. next years project.)

 > Or is this one of the cases where "big" companies prefer to use
 > undocumented and proprietary formats just for their own monetary
 > advantage?
in this case, no. argument 2. is the real one - we could not possibly
respond to  thousands of authors saying "remind me how to install a
Perl extension, what is ngsmls, i dont have a copy of flex" etc etc

anyone who really wants this animal is very welcome to ask. i dont
guarentee getting permission, but i'll ask.

 > Also, I don't buy your argument about the impossibility of converting
 > LaTeX into other formats.  A clean LaTeX file (i.e. no TeX which is
 > not explicitly part of LaTeX) and a conservative choice of packages
 > (which is what this discussion is all about) should allow very close
 > to 100% conversion.
yes. our program will do/does do a 100% conversion. one seldom sees such
files outside the testbed, however.

 > production process of your organization.  To me it seems that (at least
 > at some point in the past) either TeX or LaTeX has been the back-end
 > (I may be wrong here, but some things looked very TeX-like).
some processes and typesettters have used TeX, yes

 > the point of going via XML as an intermediate format?  Why not let
 > people submit in clean LaTeX for those who prefer to write clean LaTeX,
 > and typesetting it directly, and let others submit their RTF or XML or
 > whatever, and feed it to whatever backend?
because we want a stable archival form, which has to be XML/SGML.
for instance, we absolutely must get HTML out there for all articles, and the
production flow from archival format
must be _smooth_ and _uniform_.  we are talking about
100s of 1000s of articles. we cannot afford to have 5-10% of the
articles  done with a rogue system like latex2html.

 > And, repeating myself here, I believe that a publisher cannot "add
 > value" to papers in my field (applied analysis) by storing or distributing
 > publications in any format which is much more explicitly marked up
 > (I guess that's what XML is supposed to do) than LaTeX.
oh, i agree. good LaTeX is very good. no argument.


 > So the final question:  Why do small publishing operations (professional
 > societies and university presses) who are closer to the scientific
 > community and whose journal subscriptions are usually cheaper, use
 > LaTeX more readily than the large multinational presses?  Can we
because they serve the academic communities who use LaTeX? because
they dont maintain long-term archives? re-use data for large Web
databases like Science Direct?

 > conclude that LaTeX is doing the job pretty well after all?
LaTeX is fine, great. like the C language is fine. but do we believe
that large software engineering projects should use C, or a language
like Java or Smalltalk?

 > technical discussion.  I think it is in everybody's interest that
 > whatever future typesetting system is acceptable both to authors
 > and publishers.  But if publishers are neither very forthcoming in what
let me reiterate, publishers do not typeset! typesetters do
that. publishers are *agents*, like bankers, shifting stuff back and
forth and taking a cut.

 > they need, nor really listening to the author's needs, then at some
 > point one just has to say "screw them and let them find somebody
 > cheap in the third world to retype all the manuscipts".
and then what will you do with them? put them in the monastery
library?

i feel a bit awkward here. i do get paid by a large, very commercial,
publisher, and i feel obliged to explain their viewpoint. equally, i
can see that a future world might have no place for us, if everything
exists only on tiny individual web servers. who knows?

i do have one last (trite) remark - why are you (the academic authors
reading this) spending so much time on arguing about typesetting and
publishing? why don't you spend my tax money on doing research into
your subject......?

what do i care. if Marcel's institution dumps big publishers and sets
up its own business, they'll have to employ people to do the work, so
i hope i'll get a job until i retire. then Marcel will be the evil
money-making employer (you watch).

sebastian

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

September 2019
July 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
July 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
September 2007
August 2007
June 2007
May 2007
March 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
November 2004
October 2004
August 2004
July 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
October 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
March 2002
December 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

Universität Heidelberg | Impressum | Datenschutzerklärung

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager