Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([213.139.130.197]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Sun, 20 Jul 2003 20:06:58 +0200 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.12.9/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h6KI6tSb011120 for ; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 20:06:56 +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 h6KI06mp029784; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 20:00:07 +0200 (MET DST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C34EE9.B5BE4D00" 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 h6KBloQT000536; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 19:59:16 +0200 Received: from LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 0856 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 19:59:16 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 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 h6KHxGM9002759 for ; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 19:59:16 +0200 Received: from smtp.albany.edu (mail1.csc.albany.edu [169.226.1.133]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h6KHxoGl018452 for ; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 19:59:50 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from hilbert.math.albany.edu (hilbert.math.albany.edu [169.226.23.52]) by smtp.albany.edu (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h6KHxm3v007337 for ; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 13:59:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from hammond@localhost) by hilbert.math.albany.edu (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id h6KHxlRi008725; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 13:59:47 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: Lines: 28 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 18:06:58.0672 (UTC) FILETIME=[B624D700:01C34EE9] User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.33 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) X-Spam-Score: -33.4 () EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,QUOTE_TWICE_1,REFERENCES,REPLY_WITH_QUOTES,USER_AGENT_GNUS_UA Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: XML vs. (La)TeX markup Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 18:59:47 +0100 Message-ID: A X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Re: XML vs. (La)TeX markup Thread-Index: AcNO6bZIRwx8jBwqQNez9x9udIw+/Q== From: "William F Hammond" To: Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4726 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C34EE9.B5BE4D00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Torsten Bronger writes: > > 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 agree that "bold" (alternatively "strong") should be regarded as an abstract style container along with "emph" and a suitable content-level markup should provide both. Moreover, "emph" should be of order 2 (as in LaTeX) while "bold" should either be idempotent or of unbounded order. ("\bf" -- as opposed to "\bold" -- refers to a font, and that does not belong in content-level markup.) > 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. A good content-level markup under XML should sail right past the editor insofar as markup is concerned, provided that the editor is equipped with a suitable array of formatting tools. -- Bill ------_=_NextPart_001_01C34EE9.B5BE4D00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: XML vs. (La)TeX markup

Torsten Bronger <bronger@PHYSIK.RWTH-AACHEN.DE> = writes:

> > 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 agree that "bold" (alternatively = "strong") should be regarded as an
abstract style container along with "emph" = and a suitable
content-level markup should provide both.  = Moreover, "emph" should be
of order 2 (as in LaTeX) while "bold" = should either be idempotent or
of unbounded order.  ("\bf" -- as = opposed to "\bold" -- refers to a
font, and that does not belong in content-level = markup.)

> 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.

A good content-level markup under XML should sail = right past the
editor insofar as markup is concerned, provided that = the editor is
equipped with a suitable array of formatting = tools.

          &nbs= p;            = ;            = -- Bill

------_=_NextPart_001_01C34EE9.B5BE4D00--