MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <199811301821.NAA21383@hilbert.math.albany.edu>
Message-ID:  <13923.45532.95852.146986@srahtz>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
In-Reply-To:  <199811301821.NAA21383@hilbert.math.albany.edu>
Date:         Tue, 1 Dec 1998 09:07:40 +0000
From: Sebastian Rahtz <s.rahtz@ELSEVIER.CO.UK>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L
              <LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Subject:      Re: portable LaTeX
Status: R

William F. Hammond writes:
 > So may I conclude that Sebastian now realizes that my comment this past
 > Friday was "right"?  :-)
you dont catch me out like that.

 > : and no HTML browser enforces validation, does it?
 >
 > That's also a web rule.  Authors and servers should behave according
 > to strict rules.  Clients should be very tolerant.  (And indeed clients
 > need to be very tolerant.)
XML clients will be intolerant. they must be, by the "rules of
XML". invalid XML documents will be _rejected_ by eg Netscape 5

 > In fact, the prevalence of invalid html gives one pause in
 > contemplating the future of roll-your-own xml, where documents that
 > are not valid will splatter across one's screen.
no. definitely not. all agree that unless the XML is well-formed, it
will not make it onto your screen

 > : by which we see why LaTeX is unpopular in production workflows. that
 > : translates to "10% failure"
 >
 > Hmmm...  I believe that the head editor of a math journal that I know
 > would disagree with this last statement about LaTeX.  I think that he
mathematicians are, we know, a special case

sebastian