First login?
Lost password?
 
 
 
mailing-list for TeXmacs Users

Text archives Help


Re: [TeXmacs] Re: LaTeX sxport for submission to journal


Chronological Thread 
  • From: M Singh <address@hidden>
  • To: address@hidden
  • Subject: Re: [TeXmacs] Re: LaTeX sxport for submission to journal
  • Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 19:11:50 -0400
  • Organization: Some
On Tuesday 19 October 2004 17:01, Joris van der Hoeven wrote:

> > This is why I had submitted native support of latex class files (or at
> > least a well supported tool to translate those class files into a form
> > that texmacs uses) as an urgent wishlist feature many months ago. I was
> > told then that it would be next to impossible to implement.
>
> It is impossible to natively support LaTeX class files, although we have

Fine.

> started to port the most frequently used ones (Springer, Elsevier, AMS,

This is a cumbersome process, as it would have to be done for each class file
that is used. Since there are thousands of them out there (if not hundreds of
thousands - just check ctan.tug.org), this process will inevitably have
problems when new versions of class files come out. Versioning could easily
become a nightmare.

> IEEE, etc.). However, you cannot assume C++ to compile Fortran programs...

Setting aside the observation that f2003 is supposed to include C interop
directly, I would like to pose a few questions.

Is a texmacs class file pure text ? If so, as I suspect it is, what is the
exact problem in writing a program that parses a latex class file and o/p's a
texmacs class file ? Like \topmargin etc. could be mapped into some texmacs
equivalent, or emph, bold face, \vspace, etc. could be similarly mapped.


>
> > Unless a large number of people suddenly start using texmacs and
> > pressure various journal offices to start supplying texmacs templates (or
> > whatever they are called), the chances of new developments at editors
> > desks are remote. As it stands, that best bet for a texmacs user is to
> > hope that the conference / journal accepts PDF as a valid format (most
> > journals do not) and generate PDF from texmacs.
>
> Yes, that is what I suggested in my previous email. Even if the TeXmacs
> format is not accepted, it should be possible to send high quality Pdf
> files, as TeXmacs can generate very well now. We can make an additional
> effort to implement a few basic types of styles and give ways to customize
> them. With that it should become rather straightforward to obtain a result
> which matches the layout policy of specific journals. This definely does
> not require a lot of work from the editors; why not try!?

You do not understand an editor's point of view there. They (especially in
case of larger journals) do not have the resources or the time (or even the
inclination - for fear of messing up their manuscript processing systems) to
deal with typesetting systems for which there is little / no well tested
markup environment, and the number of people who are insistent enough (and
few prospective authors are - they are trying to get published first, not
teach the editors new things) and simply refuse to use Word / LaTeX, is
miniscule.

texmacs is the new kid on the block. The basic idea is sound, but there are a
few gaping holes which will ultimately make professional users balk at using
it when their latex skills would help them get published instead. I think
that texmacs has a few things right, and it can possibly go two ways from
here :

1. Ease of use gradually draws in users, many of whom leave because
professional publishing houses / journals etc. do not accept the .tm format.
This would probably lead to texmacs becoming another groff or lout or even an
elaborate abiword of sorts. Not a good prospect for an application otherwise
so well thought out.

2. Development of two things - a good importing system that reads in .cls
and .sty files and o/p's texmacs style files , and as the OP wanted, a
sensible, non macro based latex export system. This could really light the
fire under texmacs. Many people would still prefer to use LaTeX directly, but
the new users would naturally gravitate towards texmacs.

Of course you might say that it is not your job to make sure that texmacs
becomes widely used or even the de facto standard. However, from an open
source viewpoint, the larger the user base you have, the larger the number of
possible bugs discovered, and nicer the final product.

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.

Top of page