X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1327" "Wed" "25" "November" "1998" "17:06:28" "+0100" "Hans Aberg" "haberg@MATEMATIK.SU.SE" nil "28" "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 RAA19190; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 17:06:36 +0100 (MET) Received: from lsv1.listserv.gmd.de (192.88.97.2) by listserv.gmd.de (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <4.6B414F41@listserv.gmd.de>; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 17:06:34 +0100 Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 411189 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 17:06:30 +0100 Received: from mail0.nada.kth.se (mail0.nada.kth.se [130.237.222.70]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA27880 for ; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 17:06:19 +0100 (MET) Received: from [130.237.37.70] (sl98.modempool.kth.se [130.237.37.124]) by mail0.nada.kth.se (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA20605 for ; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 17:06:13 +0100 (MET) X-Sender: su95-hab@mail.nada.kth.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project In-Reply-To: <98112515250024@man.ac.uk> Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 17:06:28 +0100 From: Hans Aberg 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: 2921 At 15:25 +0000 1998/11/25, Phillip Helbig wrote: >> On the whole, professionals can do better that amateurs: And this also >> concerns websites and such. So publishing will simply change nature. > >I have to disagree here. Most `professional' websites I've seen are >bells-and-whistles, machine-generated, java-overkill, visually >formatted. Many amateur ones are clear and simple, hand-written, no >unnecessary flashy stuff and concentrate on content not presentation. :) I guess this is the difference between the professional stuff and the amateur stuff... :-) Turn this over, and you will understand: I have to disagree here. Most `professional' astronomy works I've seen are bells-and-whistles, machine-generated, satellite-overkill, computer analyzed. Many amateur ones are clear and simple, hand-produced, no unnecessary flashy stuff and concentrate on content not presentation. :) Another thing is that we today the use of a lot of things that may not be appropriate in the given context, but that is often the consequence of that the fellows doing it have not yet become truly professional. Hans Aberg * Email: Hans Aberg * Home Page: * AMS member listing: