Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([213.139.130.197]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Sat, 19 Jul 2003 23:40:43 +0200 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.12.9/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h6JLeeSb008600 for ; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 23:40:41 +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 h6JLXZmp018471; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 23:33:35 +0200 (MET DST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C34E3E.67A03F80" 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 h6IM06aH023367; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 23:32:51 +0200 Received: from LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 1303 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 23:32:50 +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 h6JLWoM9030012 for ; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 23:32:50 +0200 Received: from abel.math.umu.se (abel.math.umu.se [130.239.20.139]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h6JLXLmp018451 for ; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 23:33:21 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.239.20.144] (mac144.math.umu.se [130.239.20.144]) by abel.math.umu.se (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian-6.4) with ESMTP id h6JLXKuf017967 for ; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 23:33:22 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <16153.14658.292643.77990@pussy.npc.de> (Joachim Schrod's message of "Sat, 19 Jul 2003 14:27:46 +0200") <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> <16153.14658.292643.77990@pussy.npc.de> Return-Path: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jul 2003 21:40:43.0378 (UTC) FILETIME=[67D9ED20:01C34E3E] X-Sender: lars@abel.math.umu.se x-mime-autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de id h6JLWoM9030013 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.28 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) X-Spam-Score: -9.9 () EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: XML vs. (La)TeX markup Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 22:33:35 +0100 Message-ID: A X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Re: XML vs. (La)TeX markup Thread-Index: AcNOPmgDxGTihkM2TEC/gXIh3ygs2g== From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Lars_Hellstr=F6m?= To: Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4722 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C34E3E.67A03F80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable At 15.54 +0200 2003-07-19, Torsten Bronger wrote: >The intersting thing are editors for *special* XML applications. >Let me dream a bit: All scientific publishers agree on an XML format >and order a simple-to-use GUI program that can create these >documents. It runs on Linux, Windows, Mac, etc (because it's simple >itself). Authors can download it and write their articles with it. Hmmm... Apart from copyright and the technical issue of using XML as = file format, this sounds a lot like actual state of things with MS Word today (it certainly dominates non-mathematical scientific publishing). We know from experience however that it is no good. >Then there are no authors anymore that use exotic file formats, >format their text in a very strange way, no employees of the >publishers have to re-type the articles, authors don't lose time >with superfluous typographical fine tuning, guideline can be made >much simpler, archiving and retrieving is much simpler etc. How on earth is changing a technical detail (using XML instead of the admittedly exotic "Word memory dump" format) which most users are = supposed to never encounter going to effect such dramatic improvements in author practices? (Of course, this bit could be where the dreaming is applied.) Lars Hellstr=F6m ------_=_NextPart_001_01C34E3E.67A03F80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: XML vs. (La)TeX markup

At 15.54 +0200 2003-07-19, Torsten Bronger = wrote:
>The intersting thing are editors for *special* = XML applications.
>Let me dream a bit: All scientific publishers = agree on an XML format
>and order a simple-to-use GUI program that can = create these
>documents.  It runs on Linux, Windows, Mac, = etc (because it's simple
>itself).  Authors can download it and write = their articles with it.

Hmmm... Apart from copyright and the technical issue = of using XML as file
format, this sounds a lot like actual state of things = with MS Word today
(it certainly dominates non-mathematical scientific = publishing). We know
from experience however that it is no good.

>Then there are no authors anymore that use exotic = file formats,
>format their text in a very strange way, no = employees of the
>publishers have to re-type the articles, authors = don't lose time
>with superfluous typographical fine tuning, = guideline can be made
>much simpler, archiving and retrieving is much = simpler etc.

How on earth is changing a technical detail (using XML = instead of the
admittedly exotic "Word memory dump" = format) which most users are supposed
to never encounter going to effect such dramatic = improvements in author
practices? (Of course, this bit could be where the = dreaming is applied.)

Lars Hellstr=F6m

------_=_NextPart_001_01C34E3E.67A03F80--