[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Off-topic: Plain text, XML or LaTex?
From: |
Kai Großjohann |
Subject: |
Re: Off-topic: Plain text, XML or LaTex? |
Date: |
Tue, 24 Jun 2003 09:11:03 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.1003 (Gnus v5.10.3) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux) |
Mac <oonplnhd02@sneakemail.com> writes:
> I like plain text, and have for a long time used outline-mode to write
> both my own private notes as well as draft documents. I have also for
> a long time been thinking about moving to LaTex so that I also can
> produce my final documents in Emacs as well.
>
> Now I have an opportunity to move to XML instead. So I would
> appreciate your thoughts about this.
I think the main advantage of using XML is that it is
machine-processable. And the advantage of LaTeX is that it can
produce good-looking output easily.
There are ways to produce, say, HTML from LaTeX, but they are
inherently fragile and difficult to get right. Or RTF, or whatever.
I guess that would be easier with XML.
But on the other hand, LaTeX has really great support for typography,
and I doubt that there is an XML processor that allows you to specify
whether a "." character is part of an abbreviation or the end of a
sentence. (In English, end-of-sentence spacing differs from
inter-word spacing.) In LaTeX this is quite easy.
Does this help?
--
This line is not blank.
- Off-topic: Plain text, XML or LaTex?, Mac, 2003/06/23
- Re: Off-topic: Plain text, XML or LaTex?, Phillip Lord, 2003/06/23
- Re: Off-topic: Plain text, XML or LaTex?, Martin Stemplinger, 2003/06/23
- Re: Off-topic: Plain text, XML or LaTex?, Ted Zlatanov, 2003/06/23
- Re: Off-topic: Plain text, XML or LaTex?, Jeffery B. Rancier, 2003/06/23
- Re: Off-topic: Plain text, XML or LaTex?, address@hidden, 2003/06/23
- Re: Off-topic: Plain text, XML or LaTex?,
Kai Großjohann <=
- Message not available