Chris Rowley writes: > > internally the PDF model is simplistic - but then who *has* > > implemented anything better in mainstream software? > > As a model of what is it simplistic? as a model of hypertex requirements. it does not permit support targets, for instance > Some of it is the opposite of > simplistic, being over-speciliased and baroque. thats just the syntax, i assume? > And what are the `internals of a model' in this context? the features it supports, as opposed to the user syntax > But perhaps he just mean its model of links and other hyper-stuff? yes > And even more important to implement the infrastructure to make > something like pdfLaTeX (eg context;-) able to easily, portably and > transparently convert logical browser formats into well-formatted and > well-typeset documents (for both screen and paper) described in some > sufficientlly rich, device-independent language. oh, you've read the XSL spec then? > > by which we see why LaTeX is unpopular in production workflows. that > > translates to "10% failure" > > 10% failure would be heaven in our production typesetting environment if they get more than 10% failure, why in heaven do they persist? it sounds like total madness > (and we do not see any efficiency gain from sending the stuff > across the world to be keyboarded ... but this probably > short-sighted). probably it is. a typical data entry firm will get you *very* high quality useable eg SGML files. predictable cost, predictable processing. no more catcodes. > But we still have enough people around who recall the problems we used > to have with 30% failure in a galley/paste-up hard-copy external > typeseting system: even 40% failure with electronic typesetting/editing > is, for them, absolute zen already! poor souls > > a new language, using XML syntax, to say whatever you want > > <foo n="3">x<bar>y</bar></foo> > > (forget the verbose syntax for now), and then provide the XSL > > transformation script which maps that to presentational MathML. > > I have been reliably informed that XSL does not allow specifications > that are expressive enough to do this job since XSL does not exist, your informant clearly has Powers. > basically since it knows > nothing about maths, in the sense that it has no concept of arithmetic). sounds like a computer reincarnation of me > > Would this not create similar portability/conversion/parsing problems > > that we have with TeX now if this were sufficiently powerful? yes. but we'd be playing in the same swimming pool as the rest of the > > world sebastian