MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <v03110700b2949f04670b@[130.237.37.137]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID:  <366EF2B4.88F89787@na.uni-tuebingen.de>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Date:         Wed, 9 Dec 1998 22:59:16 +0100
From: Marcel Oliver <oliver@NA.UNI-TUEBINGEN.DE>
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

Hans Aberg wrote:
> Does this mean that the papers are going to be sent to you for verification
> of syntax correctness? :-) -- The problem is with all those that do not
> have this insight.

I was proposing an automated checker for this.

> >  Things get much
> >more difficult to keep functionality portable, and this is what needs
> >to be discussed in detail.
>
> I am not sure what you mean by "portable" here: If a manuscript should be
> converted to a format requiring a certain syntax, and the original does not
> have the right syntax, then the translation process will break.

Sure, but you can't really cause too much trouble without \def,
\expandafter and friends, and these clearly do not belong in a
portable format (while some form of \newcommand should be allowed for
reasons discussed some time ago).

Stuff like graphics inclusion, math formatting macros, special fonts
and plenty of others which has been mentioned many times pose
much more serious problems due to their *functionality*.

I have yet to see a syntax problem which is nontrivial in this context.
(Although you might make it a thesis project for a graduate student
to find one:-)

Marcel