X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1947" "Thu" "26" "November" "1998" "16:04:41" "+0100" "Hans Aberg" "haberg@MATEMATIK.SU.SE" nil "42" "Re: portable 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 QAA21405; Thu, 26 Nov 1998 16:05:26 +0100 (MET) Received: from lsv1.listserv.gmd.de (192.88.97.2) by listserv.gmd.de (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <0.0AD73E75@listserv.gmd.de>; Thu, 26 Nov 1998 16:05:25 +0100 Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 411607 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Thu, 26 Nov 1998 16:05:20 +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 QAA15991 for ; Thu, 26 Nov 1998 16:05:05 +0100 (MET) Received: from [130.237.37.149] (sl123.modempool.kth.se [130.237.37.149]) by mail0.nada.kth.se (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA08961 for ; Thu, 26 Nov 1998 16:05:02 +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: <199811261227.NAA14424@na6.mathematik.uni-tuebingen.de> Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 16:04:41 +0100 From: Hans Aberg Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L Subject: Re: portable LaTeX Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 2939 At 13:27 +0100 1998/11/26, Marcel Oliver wrote: >So I conclude what I have been trying to say, maybe not so clearly, >before: We need a standard for portable LaTeX which is necessarily a >subset of the capabilities of native LaTeX. I think the strongest >criterion should be that this standard does not assume that the file >is processed through a TeX backend. Also, this seems more or less >orthogonal to the goals of LaTeX3, because it is mainly a matter of >convention, and not of fundamental hacking in the LaTeX the program. I recall I suggested that LaTeX ought to have a well-defined syntax, in say EBNF like other computer languages. The problem is that there is no way within TeX to ensure that authors use that syntax. Further, TeX integrates authoring and typesetting in a way, making the task even more difficult. So it's not really an option within the current TeX: Add integrated Yacc and Lex to TeX, and it becomes possible. >Hans Aberg wrote: >> I think this will affect also scientific publishing: A lot of >> scientific results can be better presented using multimedia. Even in >> pure math, one > >True, but I think this is something that is very far from the areas >where LaTeX is the optimal engine, Not really, take a program like Maple where you want the output to be both notationally and mathematically correct: It is the need for pasting valid formulas into a document and them cut them and repaste them that drives this question. >and a unifying approach would be >even more utopic, so I think this should not be of immediate concern >here. It is another matter that it is not really possible to achieve this within the current LaTeX, because of the same reason as above, the failings of TeX. Hans Aberg * Email: Hans Aberg * Home Page: * AMS member listing: