mailing-list for TeXmacs Users

[M Singh <address@hidden>]

On Wednesday 20 October 2004 12:10, Joris van der Hoeven wrote: 

> > 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.
>
> Have you *ever* looked at a complete class file, like svjour or elsart,

I use them regularly in my work. I have even modified a few for my own 
purposes, but there is neither here nor there.

> as used by publishing companies? You will recognize that writing
> an automized converter for such files is as at least as much work
> as converting the 25 mostly style files by hand.

If it is only as difficult as converting 25 style files by hand, its a 
profitable prospect, as the convertor, once created, could be used by texmacs 
users to access thousands of other class files with a few clicks of the 
mouse.
>
> > 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.
>
> It is up to TeXmacs users to make this change. If you saved half an hour on
> typing your article using TeXmacs, then you may take five minutes to write
> a small request to the editor to accept TeXmacs as a new format.
>

A request that is almost doomed to be not honored.

> > 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.
>
> It definitely is not my job to make a 100% reliable converter from/to
> a rotten, obsolete and ill-defined TeX/LaTeX format from/to our format.

The latex format is neither rotten nor obsolete. Its powerful, only harder to 
use than texmacs.

> I am getting really tired about TeX/LaTeX compatability complaints,
> especially because people do not even *try* to push editors to
> accept our format (or Pdf).

Pushing editors is one thing, getting them to accept .tm format is quite 
another.

>
> I have the impression that the huge amount of effort I put in improving
> LaTeX compatability is never sufficient, so this is basically a huge
> waste of my time. I also consider the current export filter to be good

I apologize if my criticism was taken to imply that you have not done enough. 
I just provided some feedback about what I foresee future development time 
could be profitably invested in. I did not denigrate your efforts. Just 
presented my assessment. You are obviously free to ignore or accept that 
assessment.

> enough for my personal purposes (I rarely experience problems and they
> are always easy to correct) and it certainly is 99% reliable at least.
> The only thing I can possibly do is make it easier to write LaTeX directly
> in TeXmacs so that it is easy to manually put LaTeX code there where
> TeXmacs is unsufficient for export purposes.
>
> In the future, I rather plan to stabilize and well-document the editor
> as it is (both for users and developers). We are also working on a mode
> for editing pictures (new conversion problems), and I will still add
> some tools for annotation and web-services. If scientists still prefer
> to use Vi-LaTeX for writing papers, then so be it.
>

emacs+auctex+latex is the more commonly used combination, but I get your 
point.

Thanks for the frank response.