mailing-list for TeXmacs Users

[Joris van der Hoeven <address@hidden>]

> 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.

I doubt that there exists a fully automatic algorithm for doing this.

In fact, if the ultimate aim of the author is to convert to LaTeX anyway,
then there is maybe not even much point into porting style files to TeXmacs.
Just write using article style, export, and change the name of
the document style (we might even put that in the TeXmacs document).

> > 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.

Another, more perverse, approach would be to generate reliable,
but completely ugly and unreadable LaTeX files for all journals
who do not want to collaborate with us. Then they cannot complain
to authors, but don't get what they want.

> > 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.

It is powerful as a *language*, but rotten as a *format*.
For instance, can you give a pointer to a grammar for the format?

> > 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.

But pushing them would already be a good experience.
Please report any answers you get to me.

> > 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.

I apologize for being a bit harsh; I do not want to offend you or anyone.
But I really have had enough of conversion issues. I only do it for
the users, not for myself, I don't get any scientific recognition for it,
and I see it more and more as a waste of my time.