Hi, The problem with this proposal is that it is too complicated. People just want something that works without restrictions -- especially hard to understand ones.
Amir On 1/13/08, Jeremy Henty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 10:54:11PM +0100, Henri Lesourd wrote: > > > But as soon as your LaTeX is clean (i.e. : it uses only macros built > > on a set of clean primitives), then if the import is not absolutely > > perfect right now (although it is already quite good), it can > > definitely be lead to the point of perfection, it's just a matter of > > time (and contributions ;-). > > [snip] > > work for identifying a *clean* subset of TeX / LaTeX, and implement > > this "perfect subset" of TeX / LaTeX flawlessly. > > I have posted to Scott's blog for details on what went wrong with > importing his LaTeX. (I have, I hope, been careful to avoid making > any promises. I certainly don't want to appear to be speaking on > behalf of the TeXmacs devs.) I believe maths publishers are often > quite strict about what macro packages they will accept, so their > requirements could be starting point for identifying a useful "clean > LaTeX". > > Regards, > > Jeremy Henty > > > _______________________________________________ > Texmacs-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/texmacs-dev > _______________________________________________ Texmacs-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/texmacs-dev
