References: <199706211053.MAA10544@centre.univ-orleans.fr>
Message-ID:  <199706251345.OAA22850@knott.elsevier.co.uk>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
In-Reply-To:  <199706211053.MAA10544@centre.univ-orleans.fr>
Date:         Wed, 25 Jun 1997 14:45:20 +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
Status: R

Michel Lavaud Orleans writes:
 > The structure of the document in its first stages is indicated
 > with punctuation marks, and typesetting indications such as
 > \smallskip, \hspace{2cm}, \bf or whatever extend the set of
 > punctuation marks available, and provide a convenient visual way
 > to refine the structure. This mimicks exactly what one does when
 > writing an article by hand.
um, speak for yourself. I have tried to train myself *not* to write
articles simply as a mimic of how i used to write by hand. on the
contrary, when i write by hand these days i put in `generic markup'

i must admit i am puzzled to follow this discussion on the _LaTeX_
list. surely people here are by definition believers in uncluttered
structured markup? i can appreciate the Knuth approach of writing
as typesetting, but if i was going to do it, i wouldnt use LaTeX

Sebastian