On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 11:08:35AM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 08:57:43AM -0500, John Hasler wrote: > > Roberto writes: > > > However, IMHO, anything dealing with mathematics (in which I include > > > CompSci) really should be using LaTeX. Nothing can compare to The > > > support for mathematical notation and equations in LaTeX. > > > > I agree, and I don't really care for XML at all. Nonetheless, we are > > all eventually going to be forced to use XML for everything. > > I really think that is a bit sad. It reminds me of the old saying "if > your only tool is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail." XML > is great if you are trying to get to programs or machines to talk. It > is terrible for something that must be composed by humans. If you don't > believe me, then go spend a few months writing Ant scripts or something > like that.
Sorry for taking this thread further off the topic of this list, but can someone tell me what kind of XML we're talking about here? Any pointer to a dtd or something? I know that the file format used by OpenOffice.org is something like a zipped bunch of XML files, but surely, you're not suggesting we'll all end up writing that format in place of LaTeX...? Indeed, XML can be useful for electronic data exchange, but it's cumbersome to write. If really necessary, I'd rather write LaTeX and then process that to get the required XML -- should be possible, something along the lines of latex2html. Best regards, Jan -- +- Jan T. Kim -------------------------------------------------------+ | email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | WWW: http://www.cmp.uea.ac.uk/people/jtk | *-----=< hierarchical systems are for files, not for humans >=-----* -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
