X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1871" "Tue" "24" "November" "1998" "16:33:59" "+0000" "Robin Fairbairns" "Robin.Fairbairns@CL.CAM.AC.UK" nil "37" "Re: What is \"base\" LaTeX" "^Date:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: from listserv.gmd.de (listserv.gmd.de [192.88.97.1]) by mail.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA02077; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 17:34:12 +0100 (MET) Received: from lsv1.listserv.gmd.de (192.88.97.2) by listserv.gmd.de (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <4.1C05F523@listserv.gmd.de>; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 17:34:10 +0100 Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 411425 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 17:34:04 +0100 Received: from heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk (exim@heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk [128.232.32.11]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA02675 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 17:34:03 +0100 (MET) Received: from dorceus.cl.cam.ac.uk (cl.cam.ac.uk) [128.232.1.34] (rf) by heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #1) id 0ziLPd-0000Xg-00; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 16:34:01 +0000 Message-ID: Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 24 Nov 1998 15:43:30 GMT." <13914.54306.568153.29148@srahtz> Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 16:33:59 +0000 From: Robin Fairbairns Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L Subject: Re: What is "base" LaTeX Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 2899 sebastian writes (of chris rowley) > anyway, you are (and you know it!) deliberately misrepresenting my > basic view point.... i don't think he was, too much. you suggested it was improper for researchers to pay attention to the niceties of typesetting, and he provided good reasons that he would need to (even if he didn't have this latex hat he wears). my head of department sighs, from time to time, that typesetting is a genie it's now effectively impossible to stuff back into its bottle. he (effectively a mathematician, but practising as a theoretical computer scientist) would far rather be able to hand the typesetting of his handwritten manuscripts to some `expert', in the way he used to. but no, his publishers tell him to do it the latex way... the reason i have got away with as much latex-ery as i have, over the years, is that it's been useful to have a repository of last resort of answers to people's questions around here. i regularly get asked for help by people all over the department, occasionally by people in other parts of the university. sometimes, latex is unavoidable; and latex isn't so well documented that everyone can trivially do every sensible thing they might want. i don't believe there's a real solution to this problem, in the short term. whether a meta-language (`designers' interface') will help isn't clear to me. whether the xml bandwaggon, or whatever is tomorrow's buzz-word takes out latex altogether, i can't possibly guess (though the evidence of the sgml takeover doesn't inspire me to assume that xml will do all that much better). but even if xml _does_ take over, there are going to be people wanting advice on how to use xml tools to produce an acceptable visual result. these things _won't_ be well-enough documented (at least, the versions the researchers can afford), any more than latex is now. robin