--- Ralf Hemmecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 1) If you need to edit the pamphlet files to make them work in the > context of a big book. That sounds as if you have too much time to > spare.
Not really. I take it you regard the idea as frivolous? > 2) Where are our priorities? Improving LaTeX or improving > computational mathematics? As a literate project I would think typesetting technology and conventations are very important to our effort. Also different members of the project with different skill sets may have varying priorities - those less skilled as mathematical researchers can attack other problems. > I could imagine to impose restrictions on the LaTeX packages that are > approved be used inside an Axiom pamphlet. But do you know all the > LaTeX packages and the preferences of authors that you feel able to > decide which package to allow and which package to forbid? I don't. Surely it could be discussed as it came up. I don't imagine there would be more than a dozen or so key packages (some of which are already on our radar screen) and if over time a few more came up we could deal with it on a case by case basis. > Hmm, yes, you could call it a bug. In fact, I know LaTeX not well > enough to understand why it is so difficult to set up a wrapper file > around a collection of latex files so that each file would appear > (nearly) identical to the way it would appear as dvi when compiled > separately. Because latex packages sometimes change the way output is produced from commands. If two different packages redefine the same command, there is a collision and one of the papers won't get what it expects. More difficult, sometimes there are mutually exclusive options which must be resolved one way or another between packages. > The collection should, of course produce running page numbers. There are also desirable features such as a common table of contents and index. > What I don't believe is that you can convince package authors to take > every effort to keep their package compatible with any other package > out there. Some people just write a package because they need it for > their work and then suddenly it becomes useful for others. The was > probably only a question that the package need to be compatible with > packages that the original author used. Probably. But then, for the purposes of Axiom, why not take that package to the next level and make it a more general tool? I fully expect that Axiom will eventually push the bounds of LaTeX's typesetting abilities, and I think this is a good thing. Human readable mathematical documents are a very interesting problem in themselves - Knuth solved many of those problems well but some things like automatic line breaking are still imperfectly solved, at best. Anyway. It's possible I am underestimating the difficulties involved, but the only way to know for sure is experimentation. Cheers, CY __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
