On Thursday 01 November 2001 16:13, Mike Orr wrote: > On Thu, Nov 01, 2001 at 03:54:24PM -0800, Tavis Rudd wrote: > > On Thursday 01 November 2001 15:06, Chuck Esterbrook wrote: > > I'll agree to disagree :-) ... what do other people think?? (I'm > > really curious) > > If you and I can agree to disagree about Cheetah, you and Chuck can > agree to disagree about Webware. :) :) [meaning the 'WebKit' name]
of course, but vigorous debate is also good up to a point. If Ian had accepted my initial BDFL pronouncement about the parser architecture in Cheetah a lot of good things would have been missed. Of course, this issue is completely different. It's a subjective feeling about a name rather than an architectural issue. > > Good! What do you think about using LaTeX? > > It works, and it makes multiple output formats, but it's kind of > kludgey for that, especially since it uses an anachronistic syntax > (pre-XML). TeX's strengths are (1) mathematical formulas and (2) > sophistocated typesetting. (1) doesn't apply because we aren't > using complex mathematical formulas. (2) doesn't apply because > nobody has a DVI-capable printer. Instead, people convert them to > Postscript, using Postscript fonts instead of TeX fonts, and > throwing away all the beautiful typesetting and kerning information > TeX so painfully constructed, because the information is specific > to the size and relative proportion of TeX font characters. > > If only XML had been available when TeX was designed, then we could > have a universal rich text format that would work for both. Spot on!! Its features are very powerful, but its syntax sucks! > Are there any SGML/XML-based formats (e.g., DocBook) that would be > suitable without being overly complicated? Not that I know of. At this stage it's much easier to stick with LaTeX. _______________________________________________ Webware-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webware-discuss
