From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marcin Borkowski Subject: Re: Leslie Lamport has a foot in the 21st century Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 18:39:21 +0200 Message-ID: <8737687b5y.fsf@mbork.pl> References: <57F8B0F4.9090407@free.fr> <878ttxk39i.fsf@desiato.home.uhoreg.ca> <87pon9wki0.fsf@mbork.pl> <87vawzhr2z.fsf@desiato.home.uhoreg.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51903) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e72Em-0000nH-1F for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 12:39:32 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e72Ei-00080n-2e for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 12:39:32 -0400 Received: from mail.mojserwer.eu ([195.110.48.8]:42490) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e72Eh-0007zR-PF for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 12:39:27 -0400 In-reply-to: <87vawzhr2z.fsf@desiato.home.uhoreg.ca> List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Emacs-orgmode" To: Hubert Chathi Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org On 2016-10-11, at 16:56, Hubert Chathi wrote: > I don't know much about LaTeX3, but it looks like it's still targeting > print, and so it would have the same problems. Not only that, but the > existing LaTeX-to-HTML tools might not work with LaTeX3, so if you're > getting rid of half of your toolset, why switch to LaTeX3 instead of > some other format that targets HTML more directly? > > I'm sure that there may be good reasons for sticking with LaTeX > (e.g. being able to easily copy-and-paste into for-print articles, > familiarity with the language, etc.), but there are also disadvantages, > and it will be interesting to see what factors determine what type of > system, whether it be LaTeX or something closer to HTML, ends up being > used to write hierarchical proofs. > > I suspect that it will be a long time before hierarchical proofs gain > much popularity though, given that Lamport has been talking about them > since at least the 90's, and I haven't seen one "in the wild" yet. So I > don't know how much of a factor it will be "killing" LaTeX, if LaTeX > ever does get killed. Well, one might think that after about 20 years, LaTeX 2.09 should be already dead. It's not. Academia has a lot of inertia. So we're probably stuck with LaTeX2e (for better or for worse) for at least several decades. Best, -- Marcin Borkowski