References: <199706211053.MAA10544@centre.univ-orleans.fr>
            <199706251345.OAA22850@knott.elsevier.co.uk>
            <199706251619.SAA12779@centre.univ-orleans.fr>
Message-ID:  <199706260913.KAA24443@knott.elsevier.co.uk>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
In-Reply-To:  <199706251619.SAA12779@centre.univ-orleans.fr>
Date:         Thu, 26 Jun 1997 10:13:49 +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

 > If the history of a scientific article would be done from conception
 > to publishing, I would say it starts as a pure Plain TeX document, as
 > there are mostly mathematical formulas plus some unstructured
 > comments explaining  what the formulas are about, separated by

you seem have a very blinkered view of what a `scientific article' is!
i have written many articles as an archaeologist and computer
scientist (mosty of them very bad), and I have (I think) never used a
mathematical formula.

 > else you like (PostScript or PDF?). But trying to write a scientific
 > article from the scratch directly into SGML would be absurd, in my
i compose in LaTeX. i have also composed in XML. really, very little
difference, just a matter of < instead of \. Indeed, Phil Taylor has
promoted a style of TeX coding which is <..> anyway. when i asked him
the other week, he agreed it was _nearly_ parseable against a DTD.

sebastian