Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19443.A2474BBC@nummer-3.proteosys>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:44:34 +0100 Return-Path: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.A2474BBC" x-vm-v5-data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil][nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: {3} Re: {2} Transition from LaTeX 2.09 to LaTeX 3.0 Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1992 12:01:26 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "Kresten Krab Thorup" Sender: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" To: "Multiple recipients of" Reply-To: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 632 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.A2474BBC Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Frank said: >Now, certainly writing a parser that inputs a >209 document and outputs a ltx3 version of it is non-trivial too. But >in my eyes working on something like this is spending the time in a >much better way then trying to do in the same time a comp-style. Of >course, such a converter will probably need user interventions once a >while, either because it isn't able to handle certain structures >correctly or because there is a complicated mixture of plain and ltx >commands. But even if the conversion needs some user help, if it gets >98\% of the document over this would be okay. Remember this is a >one-time operation, it is necessary only once per document. Now the >next question is how to write such a converter and in what language? >Well I don't care about the language of the first version but the >final version that gets distributed together with ltx3 will be >probably written in TeX. Yes TeX, as this is the only language that >happens to be around on every installation that has LaTeX. This will >certainly be a slow converter but this doesn't matter. This sounds like a job for me. The proto type I will probably write in = Perl, (and it will take some time before a TeX implementation is ready), but = We'll have to have an almost finished ltx3 before it's worth thinking of... /Kresten ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.A2474BBC Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable {3} Re: {2} Transition from LaTeX 2.09 to LaTeX 3.0

Frank said:

>Now, certainly writing a parser that inputs = a
>209 document and outputs a ltx3 version of it is = non-trivial too. But
>in my eyes working on something like this is = spending the time in a
>much better way then trying to do in the same = time a comp-style. Of
>course, such a converter will probably need user = interventions once a
>while, either because it isn't able to handle = certain structures
>correctly or because there is a complicated = mixture of plain and ltx
>commands. But even if the conversion needs some = user help, if it gets
>98\% of the document over this would be okay. = Remember this is a
>one-time operation, it is necessary only once per = document. Now the
>next question is how to write such a converter = and in what language?
>Well I don't care about the language of the first = version but the
>final version that gets distributed together with = ltx3 will be
>probably written in TeX. Yes TeX, as this is the = only language that
>happens to be around on every installation that = has LaTeX. This will
>certainly be a slow converter but this doesn't = matter.

This sounds like a job for me.  The proto type I = will probably write in Perl,
(and it will take some time before a TeX = implementation is ready), but We'll
have to have an almost finished ltx3 before it's = worth thinking of...

/Kresten


------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.A2474BBC--