On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 09:33:42PM +0000, Guenter Milde wrote: > On 2016-10-09, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 04:45:11PM +0000, Guenter Milde wrote: > >> On 2016-10-09, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > ... > > >> Yes. It is good to make the documents "robust", but not if this stands in > >> the way with the main purpose: documentation. > > > +1 > > >> Example: > >> * ERT that only works with pdflatex is OK, if it explains ERT, its > >> limits and benefits. > > > In this case, I would think that we could use ERT that works more > > generally than only with pdflatex and I think that would be a better > > lesson to the user. Teaching general LaTeX knowledge I think is better > > than knowledge specific to one engine. > > The use case for ERT is special tricks to get things done. > Normally, one output format suffices to get things done. > The best ERT code in this case is a simple one, that works with this format, > not a generic with \ifpfd \ifxetex ... tests for engines and variants. > > Changing existing documents (giving other examples) just to have ERT that > works also in other engines is "stands in the way" in my view -- I'd rather > keep the pattern in the inverted:ERT.
I see what you mean now. I think we both would agree with the following: "if by using ERT that works with pdflatex, xelatex, and luatex we achieve the same level of clarity in the document, then that should be preferred over ERT that works for only pdflatex. Otherwise (if we cannot achieve the same level of clarity), the clarity of the document is most important and thus the ERT that works only with pdflatex should be preferred." Scott
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
