Message-Id: <199401281650.AA16874@mail.cs.tu-berlin.de>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET>
In-Reply-To:  <9401281630.AA03850@ftp.tex.ac.uk>
Date:         Fri, 28 Jan 1994 16:41:16 GMT
From: Sebastian Rahtz <spqr@FTP.TEX.AC.UK>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET>
To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L <LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: form and content
Status: R

Philip TAYLOR writes:
 >
 > I do not think that Barbara, Mike or I are at odds at all: surely Barbara
 > is advocating that in (for example) documents intended for TUGboat, the
 > embedded markup is that defined by (say) TugBoat.Sty; provided that that
i dont think the .Sty file suffix is supported by LaTeX2e yet.

as Michel Goossens pointed out to me today, the logical extension of
`PiffMarkUp' is that tabular data should be supplied as just a data
set, which the style might set as table, a graph, a 3d pie chart. how
far do you go?

i for one would prefer work on SGML-like rules to validate a document.
i want to explain the relationship between Section and Subsection, and
have it enforced.

does it strike anyone else that this discussion must echo Lamport's
thoughts when he wrote LateX to sit on top of plain? when he listed a
discrete set of commands to use between begin and end document?

`case sensitive pedant' rahtz