11–20 of 47 posts
I think completing the rewrite[1] of Tectonic[2] (Rust-powered XeTeX) has bigger potential and it's already working in many cases. [1] https://github.com/crlf0710/tectonic [2] https://tectonic-typesetting.github.io/en-US/
I think completing the rewrite[1] of Tectonic[2] (Rust-powered XeTeX) has bigger potential and it's already working in many cases. [1] https://github.com/crlf0710/tectonic [2] https://tectonic-typesetting.github.io/en-US/
I think completing the rewrite[1] of Tectonic[2] (Rust-powered XeTeX) has bigger potential and it's already working in many cases. [1] https://github.com/crlf0710/tectonic [2] https://tectonic-typesetting.github.io/en-US/
What does [1] do over [2] ? I looked at the readme of [1] but it's just a fork of [2], so I'm not sure why [2] needs a rewrite? Is [1] just a rewrite of [2] in Rust?
I think completing the rewrite[1] of Tectonic[2] (Rust-powered XeTeX) has bigger potential and it's already working in many cases. [1] https://github.com/crlf0710/tectonic [2] https://tectonic-typesetting.github.io/en-US/
My goal with finl is not to re-create TeX but to reimagine it. The macro-oriented programming language is a big pain point, as are the whole concept of category codes. In many instances, LaTeX is still hemmed in by the constraints of ca 1980 computing technology. If you look through tex.web, you'll see things like weird string concatenations that were done in order to save a handful of bytes of memory. It was a radic…
As far as I understand LaTeX3 is basically ready, it's just that the developers decided to make it available as an optional environment rather than a replacement to LaTeX2e - which would render it incomparable with all the things. It's also not comprehensively documented, though there are introductions. Core development work, again as far as I understand, has now shifted automatically annotated pdfs (might be the wro…
Not exactly. Originally LaTeX3 was going to be a complete rewrite of LaTeX2e. In the last year or so, there was essentially a declaration of surrender and LaTeX2e+expl3/xparse is now LaTeX3 but still called LaTeX2e. There will never be a LaTeX3 exactly. Some issues with LaTeX development are essentially intractable. They're doable in theory (because TeX is Turing complete), but not in practice.
Could you perhaps open this claim a little? What's wrong with the L3 programming layer? (https://www.alanshawn.com/latex3-tutorial/ - Already integrated to the format)
so, docbook + XSLT? :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My goal with finl is not to re-create TeX but to reimagine it. The macro-oriented programming language is a big pain point, as are the whole concept of category codes. In many instances, LaTeX is still hemmed in by the constraints of ca 1980 computing technology. If you look through tex.web, you'll see things like weird string concatenations that were done in order to save a handful of bytes of memory. It was a radic…
I understand your motivation. The thing is, there were many attempts to reimagine TeX, and none of them succeeded. Not because there were bad ideas, far from that. It's a huge project requiring a significant development team.
At least you can use Pandoc to turn old LaTeX documents into html/etc. I kind of like using tex flavoured markdown and just generating html with pandoc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My goal with finl is not to re-create TeX but to reimagine it. The macro-oriented programming language is a big pain point, as are the whole concept of category codes. In many instances, LaTeX is still hemmed in by the constraints of ca 1980 computing technology. If you look through tex.web, you'll see things like weird string concatenations that were done in order to save a handful of bytes of memory. It was a radic…
I understand your motivation. The thing is, there were many attempts to reimagine TeX, and none of them succeeded. Not because there were bad ideas, far from that. It's a huge project requiring a significant development team.