Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([62.225.9.49]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Tue, 8 Jul 2003 14:28:51 +0200 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.12.9/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h68CSlPP015227 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 14:28:50 +0200 Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.27]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h68CKbmp011890; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 14:20:37 +0200 (MET DST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C3454C.7CCAC380" Received: from listserv (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.27]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.3/8.12.3/SuSE Linux 0.6) with ESMTP id h681c0W3029100; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 14:20:29 +0200 Received: from LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 0820 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 14:20:29 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Received: from relay.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.212]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.3/8.12.3/SuSE Linux 0.6) with ESMTP id h68CKSM9002795 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 14:20:28 +0200 Received: from localhost.localdomain (p3EE20CB4.dip.t-dialin.net [62.226.12.180]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h68CKSmp011826 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 14:20:29 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localdomain (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h68Bdi36013344 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 13:39:45 +0200 Received: (from dak@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h68BdiBF013340; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 13:39:44 +0200 In-Reply-To: <200307081028.19280.tim@birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie> Lines: 56 References: <3F075002.72955C93@MartinHensel.de> <3F09CB24.7195F5E7@MartinHensel.de> <16138.9008.870309.967543@zarniwoop.ms25.local> <200307081028.19280.tim@birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie> Return-Path: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Jul 2003 12:28:52.0118 (UTC) FILETIME=[7D755B60:01C3454C] User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.28 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) X-Spam-Score: -32.8 () EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,REPLY_WITH_QUOTES,USER_AGENT_GNUS_UA Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: Invitation for discussion: My suggestion for a LaTeX3 syntax Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 12:39:44 +0100 Message-ID: A X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Re: Invitation for discussion: My suggestion for a LaTeX3 syntax Thread-Index: AcNFTH2QOjSRyU1QShKLibnGF39h9A== From: "David Kastrup" To: Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4659 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3454C.7CCAC380 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Timothy Murphy writes: > I agree completely. > The whole basis for the proposal -- > that students find LaTeX syntax difficult -- > is entirely misconceived. > > A student who can prove the Implicit Function Theorem > is unlikely to be baffled by the (not very difficult) rule > about spaces after \commands. If we restrict LaTeX users to those able to prove the implicit Function Theorem, we are in trouble. > In so far as students have objections to LaTeX > it is on the grounds that it is not WYSIWYG, > and therefore appears old-fashioned. > (I'm not saying that I agree with that argument; > just that it is what a certain percentage of students feel, and say.) > > Incidentally, not only is this proposal misconceived, > but in my opinion so are most of the proposals for modifying TeX > put forward by our masters -- They are not your masters. You can choose to ignore their work and carry on as you did before. If you don't, don't blame others. > most of these proposals are intended to answer problems which never > actually arise in real life, but are products of the fevered > imaginations of people whose time would be better spent studying > Sanskrit. > > Knuth was right 99.9% of the time. Timothy, Knuth's goal was to make it able to typeset The Art of Computer Programming for a man of his skills, and he succeeded completely. But that is not the aim of the LaTeX team. Your view is the narrow view of a mathematician, and you seem to be happy with the notion that TeX should remain just some tool useful for mathematicians. While you are entitled to this view, there are few publishers that would publish exclusively mathematic texts, and it is inefficient for them if their personnel has to learn a different tool for every discipline. Restricting the usefulness of TeX/LaTeX to just mathematicians will that way kill the publishers' willingness to offer mathematicians TeX/LaTeX as an option. Making TeX/LaTeX more accessible is certainly a worthwhile goal. But I don't see how Martin's proposal would help worth noting in that respect, while completely breaking all compatibility, necessitating completely new authoring tools and not actually increasing legibility to a worthwhile degree. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3454C.7CCAC380 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: Invitation for discussion: My suggestion for a LaTeX3 = syntax

Timothy Murphy <tim@BIRDSNEST.MATHS.TCD.IE> = writes:

> I agree completely.
> The whole basis for the proposal --
> that students find LaTeX syntax difficult = --
> is entirely misconceived.
>
> A student who can prove the Implicit Function = Theorem
> is unlikely to be baffled by the (not very = difficult) rule
> about spaces after \commands.

If we restrict LaTeX users to those able to prove the = implicit
Function Theorem, we are in trouble.

> In so far as students have objections to = LaTeX
> it is on the grounds that it is not = WYSIWYG,
> and therefore appears old-fashioned.
> (I'm not saying that I agree with that = argument;
> just that it is what a certain percentage of = students feel, and say.)
>
> Incidentally, not only is this proposal = misconceived,
> but in my opinion so are most of the proposals = for modifying TeX
> put forward by our masters --

They are not your masters.  You can choose to = ignore their work and
carry on as you did before.  If you don't, don't = blame others.

>  most of these proposals are intended to = answer problems which never
> actually arise in real life, but are products of = the fevered
> imaginations of people whose time would be = better spent studying
> Sanskrit.
>
> Knuth was right 99.9% of the time.

Timothy, Knuth's goal was to make it able to typeset = The Art of
Computer Programming for a man of his skills, and he = succeeded
completely.

But that is not the aim of the LaTeX team.  Your = view is the narrow
view of a mathematician, and you seem to be happy = with the notion that
TeX should remain just some tool useful for = mathematicians.  While you
are entitled to this view, there are few publishers = that would publish
exclusively mathematic texts, and it is inefficient = for them if their
personnel has to learn a different tool for every = discipline.
Restricting the usefulness of TeX/LaTeX to just = mathematicians will
that way kill the publishers' willingness to offer = mathematicians
TeX/LaTeX as an option.

Making TeX/LaTeX more accessible is certainly a = worthwhile goal.  But
I don't see how Martin's proposal would help worth = noting in that
respect, while completely breaking all compatibility, = necessitating
completely new authoring tools and not actually = increasing legibility
to a worthwhile degree.

--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

------_=_NextPart_001_01C3454C.7CCAC380--