Chronological Thread 

< Chronological >      < Thread >

---

Yes, I meant edit the source by hand, or extract some part of it.

Looks as arXiv want to have the source so that users would be able to modify
the document
or extract part of it into their own documents. It is likely that the source
is not
accepted as valid because it is generated by a gui that makes reuse
difficult. I could be
wrong but I can check exactly the problem.

Giovanni, does arXiv accept pdfs on their own, or do they always demand the
source that
was used to generate the pdf.


> Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 2:39 AM
> From: "Giovanni Piredda" <address@hidden>
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: arXiv
>
> Like Basile, I do not understand the criticism. With "work from source"
> do you mean edit the source by hand? I might agree with that, but I do
> not see it as an obstacle for accepting pdf generated by it on the arXiv.
>
> Giovanni
>
> Am 10.07.2021 um 16:01 schrieb Christopher Dimech:
> > TeXmacs has its own typesetting engine, but it's format
> > as with xml is almost impossible to work with from source. That is the
> > fundamental criticism about TeXmacs.  It's design is not
> > germaine to use from source.
>

---

• Re: arXiv, (continued)
  • Re: arXiv, Basile Audoly, 07/10/2021
    • arXiv, Christopher Dimech, 07/12/2021
      • Re: arXiv, Massimiliano Gubinelli, 07/12/2021
        • arXiv, Christopher Dimech, 07/12/2021
      • Re: arXiv, Frank, 07/12/2021
        • arXiv, Christopher Dimech, 07/12/2021
          • Re: arXiv, Frank, 07/12/2021
            • arXiv, Christopher Dimech, 07/12/2021
      • Re: arXiv, TeXmacs, 07/12/2021
  • Re: arXiv, Giovanni Piredda, 07/10/2021
    • arXiv, Christopher Dimech, 07/12/2021
      • Re: arXiv, Giovanni Piredda, 07/12/2021

---

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.