Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([213.139.130.197]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Sun, 20 Jul 2003 13:57:52 +0200 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.12.9/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h6KBvPSb010379 for ; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 13:57:50 +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 h6KBoBGl001177; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 13:50:11 +0200 (MET DST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C34EB6.25B2E000" 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 h6KBloMH000536; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 13:48:47 +0200 Received: from LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 0297 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 13:48:46 +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 h6KBmkM9000603 for ; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 13:48:46 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Received: from mail.gmx.net (pop.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.9/8.12.9) with SMTP id h6KBnHGl000756 for ; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 13:49:17 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (qmail 21970 invoked by uid 65534); 20 Jul 2003 06:22:35 -0000 Received: from pD900873F.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO wilson.rwth-aachen.de) (217.0.135.63) by mail.gmx.net (mp022) with SMTP; 20 Jul 2003 08:22:35 +0200 In-Reply-To: ( =?iso-8859-1?q?Lars_Hellstr=F6m's_message_of?= "Sun, 20 Jul 2003 01:10:21 +0200") Organization: Aachen University of Technology (RWTH) References: <16153.14658.292643.77990@pussy.npc.de> <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: 20 Jul 2003 11:58:12.0937 (UTC) FILETIME=[322D9B90:01C34EB6] User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) Emacs/21.2 (gnu/linux) x-mime-autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de id h6KBmkM9000604 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 X-Home-Page: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bronger Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: XML vs. (La)TeX markup Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 07:13:43 +0100 Message-ID: A X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Re: XML vs. (La)TeX markup Thread-Index: AcNOtjJNuBmo4amFSxGkU2n/+zPleg== From: "Torsten Bronger" To: Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4725 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C34EB6.25B2E000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Halloechen! Lars Hellstr=F6m writes: > At 23.54 +0200 2003-07-19, Torsten Bronger wrote: > >> >>Lars Hellstr=F6m writes: >> >> [...] >>> >>> 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.) >> >>Logical markup. The author would be *forced* to focus on contents >>and structure. There is no list of 150 fonts to choose from >>anymore, and no way to use an awful baseline skip, or to fake a >>glyph with fancy field tricks. They must obey to a big part of the >>guidelines, no matter whether they want to or not, and whether they >>are typographically competent or not. > > Oh yes, pretty much the old dream of the language that makes errors > impossible, although in a lighter form. It won't work. If you hide the > markup, then users won't care about getting it right, and then you = haven't > won anything. Well, but that's the clever bit: They *must not* get the markup right. This is done my programs that transform it to PDF (or whatever). > Denying users features that they have grown accustomed to will > kill much of the popularity, Therefore I said "one publisher alone would never dare such a thing". On the other hand, I don't think that a serious scientist would change the journal only because he insists on Word. The input program I described would be *much* easier to use, and it could export LaTeX or Word format without problems. However not the other direction. > and be prepared to see users violate markup to get the appearence > they want: if there is something that users see rendered as > "bold", there will be users that use it as "bold" regardless of > what the intended meaning is! You're right, and this is one of the problems I have with DocBook. (In DocBook, there really absolutely is no bold at all.) I would allow bold, but there still are guidelines and the program could deploy annoying warning windows whenever you use it. ;-) I don't say that the incoming journal article needn't be edited by the publisher, but it would be much less work than it is now. Tschoe, Torsten. -- Torsten Bronger, aquisgrana, europa vetus ------_=_NextPart_001_01C34EB6.25B2E000 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: XML vs. (La)TeX markup

Halloechen!

Lars Hellstr=F6m <Lars.Hellstrom@MATH.UMU.SE> = writes:

> At 23.54 +0200 2003-07-19, Torsten Bronger = wrote:
>
>>
>>Lars Hellstr=F6m = <Lars.Hellstrom@MATH.UMU.SE> writes:
>>
>> [...]
>>>
>>> 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.)
>>
>>Logical markup.  The author would be = *forced* to focus on contents
>>and structure.  There is no list of 150 = fonts to choose from
>>anymore, and no way to use an awful baseline = skip, or to fake a
>>glyph with fancy field tricks.  They = must obey to a big part of the
>>guidelines, no matter whether they want to or = not, and whether they
>>are typographically competent or not.
>
> Oh yes, pretty much the old dream of the = language that makes errors
> impossible, although in a lighter form. It won't = work. If you hide the
> markup, then users won't care about getting it = right, and then you haven't
> won anything.

Well, but that's the clever bit: They *must not* get = the markup
right.  This is done my programs that transform = it to PDF (or
whatever).

> Denying users features that they have grown = accustomed to will
> kill much of the popularity,

Therefore I said "one publisher alone would never = dare such a
thing".  On the other hand, I don't think = that a serious scientist
would change the journal only because he insists on = Word.  The input
program I described would be *much* easier to use, = and it could
export LaTeX or Word format without problems.  = However not the other
direction.

> and be prepared to see users violate markup to = get the appearence
> they want: if there is something that users see = rendered as
> "bold", there will be users that use = it as "bold" regardless of
> what the intended meaning is!

You're right, and this is one of the problems I have = with DocBook.
(In DocBook, there really absolutely is no bold at = all.)  I would
allow bold, but there still are guidelines and the = program could
deploy annoying warning windows whenever you use = it.  ;-)

I don't say that the incoming journal article needn't = be edited by
the publisher, but it would be much less work than it = is now.

Tschoe,
Torsten.

--
Torsten Bronger, aquisgrana, europa vetus

------_=_NextPart_001_01C34EB6.25B2E000--