On (24/11/05 01:24), Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 12:25:33AM +, Clive Menzies wrote:
> > I flirted with LaTex briefly, a while ago, but didn't get very far.
> > Your advice prompts me to revisit it :)
>
> To install tetex 3.0 on Sarge add:
>
> deb http://people.debian.
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 12:25:33AM +, Clive Menzies wrote:
> I flirted with LaTex briefly, a while ago, but didn't get very far.
> Your advice prompts me to revisit it :)
>
> Regards
>
> Clive
To install tetex 3.0 on Sarge add:
deb http://people.debian.org/~frank/teTeX-3.0 sarge main
t
On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 06:21:47AM +, Joe Mc Cool wrote:
> How might I access non-standard document classes: shopping list, parts
> list, invoice, bill of materials, lesson plan, scheme of work, memo,
> ..? Is there a repository of such things somewhere ? Perhaps I
> can make my own ?
>
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 10:35:27PM +0100, Juraj Fedel wrote:
> quite easy. As sugested above there are many question poping
> while using it. One that bother me most right now is about
How might I access non-standard document classes: shopping list, parts
list, invoice, bill of materials, lesson p
--- Rogério Brito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, John and others.
>
> On Nov 15 2005, John M. Gabriele wrote:
> > One thing I don't understand about LaTeX/TeX though is why it's so
> > darn big and complicated.
>
> LaTeX isn't big. Well, it does have some core packages, but they surely
> are
On 11/16/05, Juraj Fedel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> After reading a doc I started writing with latex, and it is
> quite easy. As sugested above there are many question poping
> while using it. One that bother me most right now is about
> orphans and widows lines. I thought latex will take care of
On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 01:58:34PM -0400, Michael Marsh wrote:
> On 10/19/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Be prepared to ask lots of questions when using latex, rather than get
> > frustrated. It's like unix - there's a simple way of doing most things
> > but sometimes it's no
On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 11:05:04PM -0200, Rog?rio Brito wrote:
> And if you use Emacs for typing your texts, I would highly recommend
> you to grab auctex from the Debian archive and stop 5 minutes to read
> its manual.
For those of you on the other side of the fence, vim-latexsuite is
fantastic,
Le Lundi 14 Novembre 2005 20:24, Joe Mc Cool a écrit :
> Wow,
>
> thanks a lot guys for the push towards Latex.
>
> After struggling with groff etc for years, Latex is a charm. Already
> I can do tables, footnotes, indexes, headers, footers, maths, item
> lists wonderful, a joy to wor
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 12:25:33AM +, Clive Menzies wrote:
>
> I flirted with LaTex briefly, a while ago, but didn't get very far.
> Your advice prompts me to revisit it :)
>
May I encourage you to take another look? LaTeX has a steep learning
curve, as you no doubt are aware. But once you
On (15/11/05 20:49), Rogério Brito wrote:
[snip]
> I would say that many people learn LaTeX the wrong way: getting a poorly
> designed document and just changing it quickly until it contains more or
> less what the person wants it to have.
>
> This is wrong in, at least, two aspects:
>
> 1 - thi
Hi, John and others.
On Nov 15 2005, John M. Gabriele wrote:
> One thing I don't understand about LaTeX/TeX though is why it's so
> darn big and complicated.
LaTeX isn't big. Well, it does have some core packages, but they surely
aren't *that* many.
The "complicated" part is probably using "exte
--- Joe Mc Cool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wow,
>
> thanks a lot guys for the push towards Latex.
>
> After struggling with groff etc for years, Latex is a charm. Already
> I can do tables, footnotes, indexes, headers, footers, maths, item
> lists wonderful, a joy to work with.
Hi there.
On Nov 14 2005, Joe Mc Cool wrote:
> thanks a lot guys for the push towards Latex.
And if you use Emacs for typing your texts, I would highly recommend you
to grab auctex from the Debian archive and stop 5 minutes to read its
manual.
After that, you'll be even happier with LaTeX.
And
Wow,
thanks a lot guys for the push towards Latex.
After struggling with groff etc for years, Latex is a charm. Already
I can do tables, footnotes, indexes, headers, footers, maths, item
lists wonderful, a joy to work with. And that is after
only a few hours with Kopka and Daly.
T
On Oct 27 2005, Alan Ezust wrote:
> How do you handle the equations in a LaTEX document?
I didn't had to when I said that. I only dealt with simple documents.
And, actually, I tried this past few days to convert some of my
documents from LaTeX to DocBook. I stopped in the middle.
It's so painful.
On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 01:55:12AM -0700, Alan Ezust wrote:
> On 10/22/05, Rogério Brito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Oct 22 2005, Alan Ezust wrote:
> > > Docbook/XML can also be converted to LaTEX (although the reverse is
> > > not true).
> >
> > Actually, with a few indirect steps, LaTeX can
--- Alan Ezust <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/22/05, Rogério Brito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Oct 22 2005, Alan Ezust wrote:
> > > Docbook/XML can also be converted to LaTEX (although the reverse
> is
> > > not true).
> >
> > Actually, with a few indirect steps, LaTeX can be converted b
On 10/22/05, Rogério Brito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Oct 22 2005, Alan Ezust wrote:
> > Docbook/XML can also be converted to LaTEX (although the reverse is
> > not true).
>
> Actually, with a few indirect steps, LaTeX can be converted back to
> docbook: just run latex2html or tex4ht on the La
On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 11:08:49PM -0500, Steve Block wrote:
> I think you've misunderstood one of the major purposes of XML, and that
> is to be descriptive in tag choices. This is still uncomprehensible and
That's what XSL is for. I think *you* misunderstand XML: the tag names
don't mean a dam
On Oct 22 2005, Alan Ezust wrote:
> Docbook/XML can also be converted to LaTEX (although the reverse is
> not true).
Actually, with a few indirect steps, LaTeX can be converted back to
docbook: just run latex2html or tex4ht on the LaTeX file, then convert
the resulting XML file to docbook and you
Actually, there are a number of different wiki formats available on
different systems, and many of them allow a structured markup which
can be translated into a book form, and perhaps even into docbook/XML
or latex.
If you are not using lots of equations, Docbook/XML is a great file
format to use
On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 10:12:14PM -0400, William Ballard wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 10:51:07AM +0100, Antony Gelberg wrote:
William Ballard wrote:
> Single-letter element-centric XML is fairly readable:
>
>
> 1432
> 1892
>
You are joking, right?
You're just not used to it. Once
On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 10:51:07AM +0100, Antony Gelberg wrote:
> William Ballard wrote:
> > Single-letter element-centric XML is fairly readable:
> >
> >
> > 1432
> > 1892
> >
>
> You are joking, right?
You're just not used to it. Once you get the hang of the "context" --
i.e., in that,
Absolutely true. When I started my blog esquipulas dot homeunix dot com, I
was looking for a blog machine using LaTex. It does not exist, but what a
chance. LaTex has it all and has had so for years.
I've noticed that Wikipedia uses a funny combination of latex and ?ml as
its input language.
Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 07:47:43AM +0100, Joe Mc Cool wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 07:56:07PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
LaTeX is by far the best if you are writing a textbook. However, there
Communications with O'Reilly lead me to believe that they are l
Latex (long may it live) does anyone know whether v3 has come out yet and
if so what's new? Has e.g. hyperlink support gone from being an extra to
being in the core?
Regards, Max
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECT
On 10/19/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Be prepared to ask lots of questions when using latex, rather than get
> frustrated. It's like unix - there's a simple way of doing most things
> but sometimes it's non-obvious. If there is a latex mailing list out
> there join it, and l
On Wednesday 19 Oct 2005 20:26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Yes, there's Lyx and there's a commercial wysiwyg latex editor that my
> photonics friends at university used to rave about - can't remember the
> name of it though and it wasn't cheap - about 300 GBP=450 USD by memory.
>
> But these are ra
On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 11:08:35AM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> 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
Single-letter element-centric XML is fairly readable:
1432
1892
could repr
Yes, there's Lyx and there's a commercial wysiwyg latex editor that my
photonics friends at university used to rave about - can't remember the
name of it though and it wasn't cheap - about 300 GBP=450 USD by memory.
But these are rather like HTML editors - they don't give me the control I
cr
You might have a look at LyX. It uses LaTeX as its underlying format.
I've used it for writing short CompSci test and not for anything as
large as a book, but I felt it did the job nicely.
http://www.lyx.org
Don
Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 01:16:21AM +0200, Juraj Fedel
hendrik writes:
> And it will support decades of gleeful XML-bashing discussions. Could
> that be one of the intended applications?
You may have found XML's highest and best use.
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [E
Jan writes:
> 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...?
Yes. We do have the consolation that it is a substantial improvement over
Microsoft's ga
On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 10:35:54AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Roberto writes:
> > XML is great if you are trying to get to programs or machines to talk.
>
> There probably is a problem for which XML is the best solution, but I
> haven't seen it yet.
XML is desinged to be at least a marginal solu
Roberto writes:
> XML is great if you are trying to get to programs or machines to talk.
There probably is a problem for which XML is the best solution, but I
haven't seen it yet.
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [E
On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 04:16:45PM +0100, Jan T. Kim wrote:
> 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
> > >
On 10/19/05, Jan T. Kim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(cut)
> 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?
Check docbook.
--
Homepage : http://geocities.com/arhuaco
The firs
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
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,
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 eventual
On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 07:47:43AM +0100, Joe Mc Cool wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 07:56:07PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
>
> > LaTeX is by far the best if you are writing a textbook. However, there
>
> Communications with O'Reilly lead me to believe that they are leaning
> towards XML.
On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 07:56:07PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> LaTeX is by far the best if you are writing a textbook. However, there
Communications with O'Reilly lead me to believe that they are leaning
towards XML.
Is XML a "modern" possibility for serious book/paper preparation ?
Joe
> LaTeX is by far the best if you are writing a textbook. However, there
> is quite a steep learning curve. If you have no LaTeX experience at
> all, a good book to get is "LaTeX: A Document Preparation System" by
> Leslie Lamport (the original developer of LaTeX). After that, or if you
> alread
On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 01:16:21AM +0200, Juraj Fedel wrote:
> I need to write textbook for programming course. What tools can
> you recommend (latex, docbook, ...)? Since I have not been involved
> in writing manuals I will need some tutorials too.
> Juraj
>
LaTeX is by far the best if you are wr
45 matches
Mail list logo
