William F Hammond schrieb: > > My decision was made mainly in three steps. > The issues underlying these points have been addressed in the GELLMU > Project: http://www.albany.edu/~hammond/gellmu/ . Sorry, I don't see your point. My conviction is that the current LaTeX syntax can be improved with regard to legibility. As far as I understand GELLMU, this project tries to use the LaTeX syntax to produce HTML documents, for instance. I don't see how it is concerned with improving the LaTeX syntax. Maybe you can point me to the correct page? > 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 (\documenttype{html}). Then there may be a misunderstanding. Nevertheless, I was told that LaTeX3 will be able to support several syntaxes. The statement, which syntax is used in a document may be what you ment by \documenttype. > I would also like to point out that Texinfo, the elderly language of > the GNU Documentation System, has a rigid syntax that may be > considered, apart from notation, responsive to the issues in > "syntax.pdf". Note that "sgmltexi" is an SGML model for Texinfo. > And please note that LaTeX, not Texinfo, is a backend for GELLMU > though Texinfo could be a backend, too. Sorry, I'm not very understanding today. What issues do you mean in particular? As far as I can see, Texinfo uses only commands that take no or one parameter. examples: @settitle title @url{uniform-resource-locator} The main issues I thought about in LaTeX are caused by commands that can take several more. Sorry that I'm answering with a lot more questions. Martin