References: <199706171750.SAA03440@fell.open.ac.uk>
            <199706171806.OAA27185@fenris.math.albany.edu>
Message-ID:  <199706180834.JAA17940@lochnagarn.elsevier.co.uk>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
In-Reply-To:  <199706171806.OAA27185@fenris.math.albany.edu>
Date:         Wed, 18 Jun 1997 09:34:56 +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

Mark Steinberger writes:
 > Many publishers already rely on authors to do the initial stages of
 > typesetting.
 >
 > I suspect that the percentage of such publications is on the
 > increase, and that the trend will accelerate.
this is not true for my employers; we try and discourage authors from
typesetting, it just muddies the waters

 > At least in mathematics, authors currently work in TeX (and if one is
 > lucky, latex). Authors may well be willing to learn a new system, but
 > only if they are given a good reason to do so.
our authors do not  use TeX for math; well, some do, some dont. lets not
pretend its by any means its universal

 > Is there an adequate reason to move away from TeX? If not, then
 > authoring tools should be TeX-based.
yes, there is a reason. it promotes abuse (mixing typesetting with
structure), and its not very amenable to validation. well, all the
reasons SGML was invented....

sebastian