References: <970616122025.3714@vms.rhbnc.ac.uk>
            <199706161450.OAA16450@ew160061.nets.de.eds.com>
            <199706161526.QAA16549@knott.elsevier.co.uk>
            <pc9109uvb6.fsf_-_@epsilon.ams.org>
Message-ID:  <199706171528.QAA24443@lochnagarn.elsevier.co.uk>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
In-Reply-To:  <pc9109uvb6.fsf_-_@epsilon.ams.org>
Date:         Tue, 17 Jun 1997 16:28:16 +0100
From: Sebastian Rahtz <s.rahtz@ELSEVIER.CO.UK>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L
              <LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Subject:      Re: ideal future document processing environment
Status: R

Michael John Downes writes:
 > > i am biased, of course, but my ideal future is the `NTS' box that takes the
 > > Omega engine and uses DSSSL as its style language to format XML
 > > documents.
 >
 > And with what editing interface for authors?
 >

Well, zillions of people/authors do very nicely thanks with tools like
HotMetal, Author/Editor, Framemaker, Word, to pick on a range of
possibilities. Or do you mean editing style sheets? Different tack,
though again there are examples already in Frame or Word.

This is an interesting philosophical point - what is the future of
LaTeX3? to me, its not about authors at all, but about providing
high-quality tools for document formatting professionals.  Does anyone
share my view of the distinction?

Sorry, not sure if this falls outside the discussion range, or
not.

Sebastian