On 09/24/2011 12:02 PM, Liviu Andronic wrote: > On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 5:58 PM, Julien Rioux > <jri...@physics.utoronto.ca> wrote: >> Besides, the terminology ERT has dropped out of favour a long time ago. >> > What should we use instead then? As far as I'm concerned, ERT is the > only term that accurately describes the inset. 'LaTeX code' or 'TeX > code' are inaccurate, since the inset can contain R code (in Sweave > documents), and a bunch of other things when using 'literate' (I > assume). Moreover, this is the only term that one would encounter on > the ml. > ERT has perhaps become like IBM. It used to be an acronym, but now it doesn't really stand for anything. Or perhaps now it means "Editable Raw Text". That's what it really is.
Richard
