Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([213.139.130.197]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Sat, 19 Jul 2003 14:45:15 +0200 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.12.9/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h6JCioSb007583 for ; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 14:45:13 +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 h6JCTsGl000342; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 14:29:54 +0200 (MET DST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C34DF3.99D87F80" 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 h6IM06Sr023367; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 14:27:44 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Received: from LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 0685 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 14:27:44 +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 h6JCRiM9026871 for ; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 14:27:44 +0200 Received: from mail.npc.de (fw.npc.de [62.225.140.214]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h6JCRmGl000157 for ; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 14:27:48 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by mail.npc.de (Postfix, from userid 1014) id 9663E1547; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 14:27:46 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: 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-Mailer: VM 7.04 under 21.4 (patch 8) "Honest Recruiter" XEmacs Lucid X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jul 2003 12:45:17.0572 (UTC) FILETIME=[9B60F440:01C34DF3] X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.28 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) X-Spam-Score: -19.8 () IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,REPLY_WITH_QUOTES Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: XML vs. (La)TeX markup Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 13:27:46 +0100 Message-ID: A<16153.14658.292643.77990@pussy.npc.de> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Re: XML vs. (La)TeX markup Thread-Index: AcNN85t/9iPYNdCZRdCM1Bmgfk2Wcg== From: "Joachim Schrod" To: Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4720 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C34DF3.99D87F80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >>>>> "TB" =3D=3D Torsten Bronger = writes: TB> It's very very difficult to parse arbitrary TeX. I differ here, about the "very very". For one, there exist parsers. Second, a professional versed in formal languages and compiler writing can create a new TeX parser from scratch in 2-4 weeks. It is difficult not because of technical reasons but because existing programs are not put into real end-user products -- the demand doesn't seem to be there. Frankly, those who cry about missing validation simply don't put their money where their mouth is. TB> I think eventually we won't actually see XML anymore. We will use TB> e.g. systems like LyX that use XML as the underlying format, and TB> that call TeX for decent typesetting. XML is not for the human eye TB> in my opinion. TB> Until then, you can make XML rather bearable. Joachim's problems TB> with micro-typography, space handling, and TeX markup in special TB> situations (in particular in formulae) can be dealt with in XML TB> applications. I keep reading that argument for almost 15 years now, since I started to work with SGML. This statement was taken over unaltered by the XML fork. Yes, "XML is not for the human eye" -- and why are we forced to work with it that way? The problem is not "can it be dealt with". The problem is "it is not dealt with". Lots of promises about tools that are elementary to the approach, since the markup is not to be meant to be written by humans. But no strong progress. Where is the Apache XML project to provide a good interactive document input and manipulation facility? Please note that I don't bemoan that fact, I state it. That state of affairs is OK for me, I don't need XML for document writing -- I have LaTeX. And XML for data markup -- which I need alot -- is independent of interactive tools anyhow. IMO, good XML editors are not created because there is not enough need for them. TB> The problem is that in most cases the XML people just don't care. Yes, and you drove home the reason why LaTeX markup will be better for documents in the foreseeable future in one single sentence. But I don't want to distract your work on tbook. It is a very good project that I follow with interest. I even try to find the time to look at your UTF8/xindy problem -- but sometimes I'm too distracted and start to write postings to LATEX-L. ;-) Cheers Joachim -- =3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D= -=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-= =3D Joachim Schrod Email: jschrod@acm.org Roedermark, Germany ``How do we persuade new users that spreading fonts across the = page like peanut butter across hot toast is not necessarily the route = to typographic excellence?'' -- Peter Flynn ------_=_NextPart_001_01C34DF3.99D87F80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: XML vs. (La)TeX markup

>>>>> "TB" =3D=3D Torsten = Bronger <bronger@PHYSIK.RWTH-AACHEN.DE> writes:

TB> It's very very difficult to parse arbitrary = TeX.

I differ here, about the "very very". For = one, there exist parsers.
Second, a professional versed in formal languages and = compiler writing
can create a new TeX parser from scratch in 2-4 = weeks. It is difficult
not because of technical reasons but because existing = programs are not
put into real end-user products -- the demand doesn't = seem to be
there.

Frankly, those who cry about missing validation simply = don't put their
money where their mouth is.


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

TB> Until then, you can make XML rather bearable. = Joachim's problems
TB> with micro-typography, space handling, and TeX = markup in special
TB> situations (in particular in formulae) can be = dealt with in XML
TB> applications.

I keep reading that argument for almost 15 years now, = since I started
to work with SGML. This statement was taken over = unaltered by the XML
fork. Yes, "XML is not for the human eye" = -- and why are we forced to
work with it that way?

The problem is not "can it be dealt with". = The problem is "it is not
dealt with". Lots of promises about tools that = are elementary to the
approach, since the markup is not to be meant to be = written by humans.
But no strong progress. Where is the Apache XML = project to provide a
good interactive document input and manipulation = facility?

Please note that I don't bemoan that fact, I state it. = That state of
affairs is OK for me, I don't need XML for document = writing -- I have
LaTeX. And XML for data markup -- which I need alot = -- is independent
of interactive tools anyhow. IMO, good XML editors = are not created
because there is not enough need for them.


TB> The problem is that in most cases the XML = people just don't care.

Yes, and you drove home the reason why LaTeX markup = will be better for
documents in the foreseeable future in one single = sentence.

But I don't want to distract your work on tbook. It is = a very good
project that I follow with interest. I even try to = find the time to
look at your UTF8/xindy problem -- but sometimes I'm = too distracted
and start to write postings to LATEX-L. ;-)


Cheers
        = Joachim

--
=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-= =3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D= -=3D-=3D-=3D
Joachim = Schrod           &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;          Email: = jschrod@acm.org
Roedermark, Germany

        ``How do we = persuade new users that spreading fonts across the page
        like = peanut butter across hot toast is not necessarily the route to
        = typographic = excellence?''          =              = -- Peter Flynn

------_=_NextPart_001_01C34DF3.99D87F80--