X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2606" "Mon" "14" "December" "1998" "10:41:55" "+0000" "Sebastian Rahtz" "s.rahtz@ELSEVIER.CO.UK" nil "63" "Re: portable LaTeX" "^Date:" nil nil "12" nil "portable LaTeX" 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 MAA11058; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 12:04:34 +0100 (MET) Received: from lsv1.listserv.gmd.de (192.88.97.2) by listserv.gmd.de (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <2.5F2746C5@listserv.gmd.de>; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 12:04:31 +0100 Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 412728 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 12:04:27 +0100 Received: from pillar.elsevier.co.uk (root@pillar.elsevier.co.uk [193.131.222.35]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA12963 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 12:04:23 +0100 (MET) Received: from snowdon.elsevier.co.uk [193.131.197.164]; by pillar.elsevier.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP; for ""; sender "s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk"; id KAA19317; hop 0; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 10:55:49 GMT Received: from srahtz (actually host srahtz.elsevier.co.uk) by snowdon.elsevier.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Mon, 14 Dec 1998 11:03:37 +0000 X-Mailer: emacs 20.3.2 (via feedmail 9-beta-3 Q); VM 6.61 under Emacs 20.3.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <199812092035.VAA16014@na6.mathematik.uni-tuebingen.de> <13938.39518.68424.927988@fell.open.ac.uk> Message-ID: <13940.60275.707096.141106@srahtz> Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project In-Reply-To: <13938.39518.68424.927988@fell.open.ac.uk> Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 10:41:55 +0000 From: Sebastian Rahtz 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: 3092 Chris Rowley writes: > > internally the PDF model is simplistic - but then who *has* > > implemented anything better in mainstream software? > > As a model of what is it simplistic? as a model of hypertex requirements. it does not permit support targets, for instance > Some of it is the opposite of > simplistic, being over-speciliased and baroque. thats just the syntax, i assume? > And what are the `internals of a model' in this context? the features it supports, as opposed to the user syntax > But perhaps he just mean its model of links and other hyper-stuff? yes > And even more important to implement the infrastructure to make > something like pdfLaTeX (eg context;-) able to easily, portably and > transparently convert logical browser formats into well-formatted and > well-typeset documents (for both screen and paper) described in some > sufficientlly rich, device-independent language. oh, you've read the XSL spec then? > > by which we see why LaTeX is unpopular in production workflows. that > > translates to "10% failure" > > 10% failure would be heaven in our production typesetting environment if they get more than 10% failure, why in heaven do they persist? it sounds like total madness > (and we do not see any efficiency gain from sending the stuff > across the world to be keyboarded ... but this probably > short-sighted). probably it is. a typical data entry firm will get you *very* high quality useable eg SGML files. predictable cost, predictable processing. no more catcodes. > But we still have enough people around who recall the problems we used > to have with 30% failure in a galley/paste-up hard-copy external > typeseting system: even 40% failure with electronic typesetting/editing > is, for them, absolute zen already! poor souls > > a new language, using XML syntax, to say whatever you want > > xy > > (forget the verbose syntax for now), and then provide the XSL > > transformation script which maps that to presentational MathML. > > I have been reliably informed that XSL does not allow specifications > that are expressive enough to do this job since XSL does not exist, your informant clearly has Powers. > basically since it knows > nothing about maths, in the sense that it has no concept of arithmetic). sounds like a computer reincarnation of me > > Would this not create similar portability/conversion/parsing problems > > that we have with TeX now if this were sufficiently powerful? yes. but we'd be playing in the same swimming pool as the rest of the > > world sebastian