On 2016-10-11, at 16:56, Hubert Chathi <hub...@uhoreg.ca> 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
