Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([213.139.130.197]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Sat, 19 Jul 2003 00:13:43 +0200 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.12.9/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h6IMDeSb005856 for ; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 00:13:42 +0200 Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.27]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h6IM5YGl025874; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 00:05:35 +0200 (MET DST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C34D79.D9628580" 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 h6IM06Mv023367; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 00:04:21 +0200 Received: from LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 0025 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 00:04:21 +0200 Received: from relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (relay2.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.210.211]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.3/8.12.3/SuSE Linux 0.6) with ESMTP id h6IM4LM9023419 for ; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 00:04:21 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Received: from mail.gmx.net (pop.gmx.de [213.165.64.20]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.9/8.12.9) with SMTP id h6IM4oGl025792 for ; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 00:04:50 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (qmail 17709 invoked by uid 65534); 18 Jul 2003 22:04:48 -0000 Received: from pD90087E8.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO wilson.rwth-aachen.de) (217.0.135.232) by mail.gmx.net (mp022) with SMTP; 19 Jul 2003 00:04:48 +0200 In-Reply-To: <200307182058.h6IKwHwi028465@bilbo.localnet> (Boris Veytsman's message of "Fri, 18 Jul 2003 16:58:17 -0400") Organization: Aachen University of Technology (RWTH) References: <20030710081528.A12401@diabolo.informatik.rwth-aachen.de> <78ADDA01-B2DC-11D7-8AE7-0050E4455404@atlis.com> <20030711081704.A14039@diabolo.informatik.rwth-aachen.de> <16146.60345.852158.31606@pussy.npc.de> <16150.44860.510973.820690@pussy.npc.de> <200307171432.h6HEWXrZ002742@bilbo.localnet> <16151.19056.880153.478641@pussy.npc.de> <200307182058.h6IKwHwi028465@bilbo.localnet> Return-Path: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Jul 2003 22:13:44.0385 (UTC) FILETIME=[DA35DB10:01C34D79] User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) Emacs/21.2 (gnu/linux) X-Accept-Language: de, en X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.28 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) x-pgp-fingerprint: CA13 274E 96EF 1DB1 4992 D7D4 D523 14FB 4752 F2EF X-Face: $:ZH*7V$(*!W]7{qQLhM-f#d(Q6#shsBz8[qPwvRr(Hy{#Y3-$C\85(LKA[4'=X]Jy\),51 DU?fMKf}G[2r)>~K8Z3dWD<'R/hRsgW>Q.Fytf-:n*FG&iWyWNMM+c)(_R.k`$zrcq5%9yt"cd)Q]c 5G_W!:/8\S4ytn&NYP,OVd_|*GjEqvk:zK(,BTXvqgj4 X-Spam-Score: -32.8 () EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,REPLY_WITH_QUOTES,USER_AGENT_GNUS_UA x-binford: 6100 (more power) x-pgp-affinity: will accept encrypted message for GPG Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: XML vs. (La)TeX markup Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 22:59:34 +0100 Message-ID: A X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Re: XML vs. (La)TeX markup Thread-Index: AcNNedrAPQZ9DbUDTT2dxkke34CftA== From: "Torsten Bronger" To: Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4716 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C34D79.D9628580 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Halloechen! Boris Veytsman writes: > JS> Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 03:16:32 +0200 > JS> From: Joachim Schrod > > > JS> -- Actually, IMO the main disadvantage of TeX markup is the > JS> shortage of skillfull people in the job market to implement that > JS> markup. That makes any manager worth his salary shy away from > JS> TeX. For me, that's the main reason to use XML, I find more > JS> people with the needed skills. > > This brings the question, which I hope is NOT off topic here. Why is > the situatoion on the job market so skewed? I personally find TeX > markup much more "natural" and easy than XML -- why do most people > think otherwise? It's very very difficult to parse arbitrary TeX. And it is very difficult for authors to use a clearly defined subset of (La)TeX that a certain parser could understand -- everybody wants to "improve" the output with own fancy structures. LaTeX is only defined as "producing no error messages if compiled against its mindbogglingly complex core code", whereas XML is defined via EBNF. > Is there a "silver bullet" in XML markup that helps thousands > people understand it? I think eventually we won't actually see XML anymore. We will use e.g. systems like LyX that use XML as the underlying format, and that call TeX for decent typesetting. XML is not for the human eye in my opinion. Until then, you can make XML rather bearable. Joachim's problems with micro-typography, space handling, and TeX markup in special situations (in particular in formulae) can be dealt with in XML applications. The problem is that in most cases the XML people just don't care. Tschoe, Torsten. -- Torsten Bronger, aquisgrana, europa vetus ------_=_NextPart_001_01C34D79.D9628580 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: XML vs. (La)TeX markup

Halloechen!

Boris Veytsman <borisv@LK.NET> writes:

> JS> Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 03:16:32 = +0200
> JS> From: Joachim Schrod = <jschrod@ACM.ORG>
>
>
> JS>  -- Actually, IMO the main = disadvantage of TeX markup is the
> JS>  shortage of skillfull people in the = job market to implement that
> JS>  markup.  That makes any = manager worth his salary shy away from
> JS>  TeX. For me, that's the main reason = to use XML, I find more
> JS>  people with the needed = skills.
>
> This brings the question, which I hope is NOT = off topic here. Why is
> the situatoion on the job market so skewed? I = personally find TeX
> markup much more "natural" and easy = than XML -- why do most people
> think otherwise?

It's very very difficult to parse arbitrary TeX.  = And it is very
difficult for authors to use a clearly defined subset = of (La)TeX
that a certain parser could understand -- everybody = wants to
"improve" the output with own fancy = structures.

LaTeX is only defined as "producing no error = messages if compiled
against its mindbogglingly complex core code", = whereas XML is
defined via EBNF.

> Is there a "silver bullet" in XML = markup that helps thousands
> people understand it?

I think eventually we won't actually see XML = anymore.  We will use
e.g. systems like LyX that use XML as the underlying = format, and
that call TeX for decent typesetting.  XML is = not for the human eye
in my opinion.

Until then, you can make XML rather bearable.  = Joachim's problems
with micro-typography, space handling, and TeX markup = in special
situations (in particular in formulae) can be dealt = with in XML
applications.  The problem is that in most cases = the XML people
just don't care.

Tschoe,
Torsten.

--
Torsten Bronger, aquisgrana, europa vetus

------_=_NextPart_001_01C34D79.D9628580--