Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

Am 05.10.2010 um 12:46 schrieb Dominik Wujastyk: This is completely wrong, and anachronistic. SGML was born long after TeX and LaTeX. You probably mean that ISO standard on SGML from 1986 (8879). There is none for any TeX dialect... William W. Tunnicliffe had the idea of SGML at least

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

On 4 October 2010 12:25, Keith J. Schultz wrote: > >TeX was developed as a subset of SGML or if you wish clone, variant, > etc. > This is completely wrong, and anachronistic. SGML was born long after TeX and LaTeX. It is true that LaTeX's syntax owes a debt to Scribe (as Lamport says so

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

On 2010-10-05 05:21:21 +1030, Apostolos Syropoulos said: written in WEB, which is a Pascal-based system + documentation; it is often converted to C for compilation. And TeX itself doesn't look anything like LISP to me, but maybe I'm missing s.t.? (Like a CAR and a CDR and...) Several ye

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

O.K. I am can not remember where I got the part where TeX was based on SGML. Maybe, I have the context wrong maybe it was LaTeX. It was somewhere in the depths of CTAN, though. regards Keith Am 04.10.2010 um 19:13 schrieb maxwell: > 10...@googlemail.com> <099c5363-8fa4-43bd-bc2e-f981c1d

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

> As for the '>' line, the first version of TeX was implemented in SAIL, > which was an Algol-like programming language. The current version is So what? I do not understand what's the point you are trying to make. A language implementor can freely choose any existing language to implement a new

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

Sent from my iPad On 05/10/2010, at 4:13 AM, maxwell wrote: > > On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 06:22:13 -0700 (PDT), Apostolos Syropoulos > wrote: > [not sure who is being quoted here:] >>>TeX was developed as a subset of SGML It's pretty clear that Keith meant to say that XML was developed as a s

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

10...@googlemail.com> <099c5363-8fa4-43bd-bc2e-f981c1da6...@web.de> <291385.69446...@web110116.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3b7d79f69c7aa8d3caf00316e53fa...@umiacs.umd.edu> X-Sender: maxw...@umiacs.umd.edu User-Agent: RoundCube Webmail/0.3.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/p

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

Hi All, I chime in here. This is all OT. At the risk of being mark as a TROLL, here goes. Evidently, the participants of this discussion come from varying backgrounds and the terminology is getting all messed up. 1) structure of a document

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

Hi Elliot, There is nothing like a fool question. As to ConTeXt and LuaTeX. When ConTeXt came out i thought that is what I was waiting for, but when I went to the manuals I went UGHH! How was this suppose to be easier than LaTeX. Since I did have the time

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

> TeX was developed as a subset of SGML or if you wish clone, variant, etc. > TeX is a declarative and procedural programming language. What is more > important it is dynamic! That is it is possible to change the > definitions >of the > macros used while the program is runnin

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

Hi Everybody, I am very sorry for starting this discussion of on OT route. Whether to use Word or "TeX" for one purpose the other is very philosophical. Each has their strengths and deficiencies. A discussion that does not belong here and there is no real

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

Am 02.10.2010 um 20:41 schrieb Philipp Stephani: > Am 30.09.2010 um 12:27 schrieb Keith J. Schultz: > >> The same should be true of xelshort. It should: > > I find your list very useful, but it seems to focus more on the differences > between XeLaTeX and pdfLaTeX. What I have in mind is a docu

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

On 2 Oct 2010, at 19:12, Philipp Stephani wrote: > Am 30.09.2010 um 20:12 schrieb Elliott Roper: > >> What I'm lacking is a set of beginner documents that ties all the TeX zoo >> together. Do I have to read source to find the definitive answer to which >> package has what package as a pre-requ

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

On 2 Oct 2010, at 18:56, Philipp Stephani wrote: > Am 01.10.2010 um 00:49 schrieb Elliott Roper: > >>> As far a documentation is concerned look at the LaTeX Companion for >>> packages. >> ..and that's where I get a bit taken aback. The book arrives last Saturday. >> I head for the Index for th

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

> A very good source is Murray Sargent's blog: > http://blogs.msdn.com/b/murrays/ > e.g. this (quite technical) post: > http://blogs.msdn.com/b/murrays/archive/2006/09/13/752206.aspx > "The new font tables enable one to automatically position subscripts and > superscripts horizontally better

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

Am 03.10.2010 12:43, schrieb Philip Taylor (Webmaster, Ret'd): Philipp Stephani wrote: Yes, but is that really "structure"? Of course it's basically a question of definition, but if you look at other technologies that are supposed to be able to express structure (e.g. XML), then you'll find

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

Am 03.10.2010 um 10:14 schrieb Philip Taylor (Webmaster, Ret'd): > > > Philipp Stephani wrote: > >> In TeX you cannot state the structure because TeX is a low-level > > typesetting system that offers only a few low-level primitives > > and a macro language. > > If "TeX offered only a few low-

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

Philipp Stephani wrote: Yes, but is that really "structure"? Of course it's basically a question of definition, but if you look at other technologies that are supposed to be able to express structure (e.g. XML), then you'll find data modeling, schema, transformation and querying languages,

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

Am 03.10.2010 um 10:00 schrieb Philip Taylor (Webmaster, Ret'd): > > > Philipp Stephani wrote: > >> Here (in German): >> http://www.golatex.de/latex-mathe-font-fuer-bildschirm-t3664.html >> >> Although I have to admit that in that case the quality is more related to >> the font and not so mu

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

Philipp Stephani wrote: In TeX you cannot state the structure because TeX is a low-level > typesetting system that offers only a few low-level primitives > and a macro language. If "TeX offered only a few low-level primitives", I would have been willing to accept that your argument might hav

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

Philipp Stephani wrote: Here (in German): http://www.golatex.de/latex-mathe-font-fuer-bildschirm-t3664.html Although I have to admit that in that case the quality is more related to the font and not so much to the typesetting. But see Ulrik's article for an overview of the improvements made

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

On 10/2/2010 2:47 PM, Philipp Stephani wrote: Typographers generally use systems with better typographical support than TeX can offer, e.g. InDesign or QuarkXPress. It may well be that ID or Quark are better for advertisements, magazines with lots of big glossy photos, and such. But Xe(La)T

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

Am 02.10.2010 um 23:56 schrieb Philip Taylor (Webmaster, Ret'd): > > > Philipp Stephani wrote: > >> Indeed I've already seen questions in LaTeX forums on how to achieve Word's >> math typesetting quality in LaTeX. > > Could you please cite such a question ? Here (in German): http://www.gola

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

Philipp Stephani wrote: Indeed I've already seen questions in LaTeX forums on how to achieve Word's math typesetting quality in LaTeX. Could you please cite such a question ? Philip Taylor -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

Le 02/10/2010 22:36, Philipp Stephani a écrit : Am 02.10.2010 um 21:52 schrieb Paul Isambert: Le 02/10/2010 21:22, Alan Munn a écrit : On Oct 2, 2010, at 2:47 PM, Philipp Stephani wrote: Am 30.09.2010 um 09:36 schrieb Tobias Schoel: Hi, there are three kinds of people who should learn Te

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

Am 02.10.2010 um 21:52 schrieb Paul Isambert: > Le 02/10/2010 21:22, Alan Munn a écrit : >> On Oct 2, 2010, at 2:47 PM, Philipp Stephani wrote: >> >>> Am 30.09.2010 um 09:36 schrieb Tobias Schoel: >>> Hi, there are three kinds of people who should learn TeX&Co: - those who

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

Am 02.10.2010 um 21:22 schrieb Alan Munn: > On Oct 2, 2010, at 2:47 PM, Philipp Stephani wrote: > >> Am 30.09.2010 um 09:36 schrieb Tobias Schoel: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> there are three kinds of people who should learn TeX&Co: >>> - those who absolutely need TeX, because no other system let's them

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

Le 02/10/2010 21:22, Alan Munn a écrit : On Oct 2, 2010, at 2:47 PM, Philipp Stephani wrote: Am 30.09.2010 um 09:36 schrieb Tobias Schoel: Hi, there are three kinds of people who should learn TeX&Co: - those who absolutely need TeX, because no other system let's them produce the documents

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

Am 30.09.2010 um 00:42 schrieb Alan Munn: > > On Sep 29, 2010, at 5:59 PM, Peter Dyballa wrote: > >> >> Am 29.09.2010 um 23:40 schrieb Philipp Stephani: >> >>> reality is approximately as follows: Users who read beginner documents such >>> as lshort don't want to use TeX, but are forced to d

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

On Oct 2, 2010, at 2:47 PM, Philipp Stephani wrote: Am 30.09.2010 um 09:36 schrieb Tobias Schoel: Hi, there are three kinds of people who should learn TeX&Co: - those who absolutely need TeX, because no other system let's them produce the documents they have to (all this linguistis and co.

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

Am 30.09.2010 um 09:36 schrieb Tobias Schoel: > Hi, > > there are three kinds of people who should learn TeX&Co: > - those who absolutely need TeX, because no other system let's them produce > the documents they have to (all this linguistis and co. [don't take offense, > I have no idea of the p

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

Am 30.09.2010 um 12:27 schrieb Keith J. Schultz: > The same should be true of xelshort. It should: I find your list very useful, but it seems to focus more on the differences between XeLaTeX and pdfLaTeX. What I have in mind is a document that should be readable for beginners who have never use

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

Am 30.09.2010 um 16:01 schrieb Keith J. Schultz: > With Tex et al. the structure/formatting commands are in document verbatim. > When using TeX et al. you are more aware of what you are doing I don't know if that is really true. It's relatively easy to find out the current style of a character/p

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

Am 30.09.2010 um 17:33 schrieb Axel Kielhorn: >> The attractiveness to using LaTeX to exchange documents (in the past, >> and to a large extent, even now) is that you can be sure that the >> source file can be read by your computer, even if you don't have the >> same fonts or language support (EOL

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

Am 30.09.2010 um 20:12 schrieb Elliott Roper: > What I'm lacking is a set of beginner documents that ties all the TeX zoo > together. Do I have to read source to find the definitive answer to which > package has what package as a pre-requisite? Yes, and that won't change until LaTeX becomes a s

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

Am 01.10.2010 um 00:14 schrieb Peter Dyballa: > > Am 30.09.2010 um 00:42 schrieb Alan Munn: > >> And I deal with a broad range of students at a major US research university. > > > U.S. American students are not a gauge for Earth's youth. I didn't talk about American students. What I describe

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

Am 01.10.2010 um 00:49 schrieb Elliott Roper: >> As far a documentation is concerned look at the LaTeX Companion for packages. > ..and that's where I get a bit taken aback. The book arrives last Saturday. I > head for the Index for the bits I really need. > XeTeX - nada > fontspec - zip > Unicode

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

Am 01.10.2010 um 08:25 schrieb Tobias Schoel: > Hi, > > of course, any document has structure and formatting, even plain txt-files > have. That's not the point. The point I made, and you wrote it yourself: > - In TeX you explicitly state the structure/format. In TeX you cannot state the struct

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

Am 01.10.2010 um 15:55 schrieb Axel Kielhorn: Do you have a guide that explains how to turn a pdflatex document into a xelatex document? Something like this preamble? \documentclass[11pt,final]{article} \usepackage{ifpdf,ifxetex} \usepackage{graphicx} %[dvipdfmx] \usepackage[nger

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

> On page xxvii it says February 2004. > IIRC XeTeX was first included in TexLive 2007. > It was MacOS only until a few month earlier. > LuaTeX was included in 2009. 2008 actually. Not that it changes anything to your point, of course. Arthur -

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

Am 30.09.2010 um 18:47 schrieb Michiel Kamermans: > On 9/30/2010 8:33 AM, Axel Kielhorn wrote: >> >> The main problem is that lshort is a latin1 document, thus it is almost >> impossible (yes, there is arabtex and CJK) to show examples. >> > > well... we are on the xetex mailing list: save

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

Am 01.10.2010 um 00:49 schrieb Elliott Roper: > > On 30 Sep 2010, at 22:52, Keith J. Schultz wrote: > >> As far a documentation is concerned look at the LaTeX Companion for packages. > ..and that's where I get a bit taken aback. The book arrives last Saturday. I > head for the Index for the bi

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

hi, that is correct. but it's also part of the discussion, whom lshort is aimed at and what role xelatex plays in lshort for that specific reason. as the discussion seems to have come to the end and a result has been achieved, i think this thread can be closed. On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Kei

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

Hi Tobias, I see where you are coming from. But, your basic point are here OT. I will mail you off list as this discussion though interesting is of mcuh interest to this list that education of students. regards Keith. Am 01.10.2010 um 08:2

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

Hi, of course, any document has structure and formatting, even plain txt-files have. That's not the point. The point I made, and you wrote it yourself: - In TeX you explicitly state the structure/format. And going one step further: - In TeX you explicitly state the structure. - In TeX then

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

On 30 Sep 2010, at 22:52, Keith J. Schultz wrote: > Hi Elliot, > > Welcome aboard. Thanks > > First , if your on a Mac take a look at TeXShop, if not look at TeXWorks, > it might be more familiar to you. It might be eaier that learning E-macs. > (your call). I'm loving Emacs. It's evil! I am o

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

Am 30.09.2010 um 00:42 schrieb Alan Munn: And I deal with a broad range of students at a major US research university. U.S. American students are not a gauge for Earth's youth. (Their number is also too small.) And indeed I more often interact with much younger people. -- Greetings

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

Hi Elliot, Welcome aboard. First , if your on a Mac take a look at TeXShop, if not look at TeXWorks, it might be more familiar to you. It might be eaier that learning E-macs. (your call). As far a documentation is concerned look at the LaTeX Companion for packages. Forget about anything you fi

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

I have set lshort for german in xetex and use some system fonts. But the code is old and it does not use unicode or the math styles for xetex. so alot of work to do. I not planing on converting it just use for experimenting. regards Keith. Am 30.09.2010 um 18:47 schrieb Michiel Kamerman

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

Sorry if you got the impression that I had something against TeX or bias towards WYSIWYG! My point was basically, Any document has structure and formatting. TeX does not enforce structure. In TeX you explicitly state the structure/format. TeX use to be the most powerful typesetting system arou

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

On 30 Sep 2010, at 18:11, Gerrit Glabbart wrote: > > Am 30.09.2010 um 16:01 schrieb Keith J. Schultz: > > >> If you take the >> time to look at a Word-file(doc or docx) verbatim, you will see the >> structure. >> Though some of it will not be human discernible. > > I'd call that a drawback,

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

Am 30.09.2010 um 16:01 schrieb Keith J. Schultz: > If you take the > time to look at a Word-file(doc or docx) verbatim, you will see the structure. > Though some of it will not be human discernible. I'd call that a drawback, wouldn't you? > With Tex et al. the structure/formatting commands a

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

On 9/30/2010 8:33 AM, Axel Kielhorn wrote: The main problem is that lshort is a latin1 document, thus it is almost impossible (yes, there is arabtex and CJK) to show examples. well... we are on the xetex mailing list: save the source as utf-8 unicode and then compile it with xelatex? =)

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

Am 30.09.2010 um 02:39 schrieb Andy Lin: > lshort needs to be updated, not just because it's missing sections on > Unicode and XeTeX. It's also working under the assumption that people > will *need* to use the command line in order to process a document. > This should be a concern to anyone who's

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

I do not get it. A text document is per say structured one way or the other. Tex-documents do not add anymore structure to the text than any other WYSIWYG-Program. With WYSIWYG the structure of the document is not visible in the form of command codes, but are represented directly on your screen.

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

2010/9/30 Mike Maxwell : > On 9/29/2010 9:29 PM, Herbert Schulz wrote: >> >> I just like well organized articles with good hierarchy although I >> used to (before I retired) do all my exams in LaTeX with some custom >> macros. > > I think you're quite unusual. … but in a good way! :) Actually, th

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

Hi All, I chime in here again. First, I give you some of my background. I have been around computer for 30 years, since the advent of the PC Apple IIe (my first) and the IBM PC( The 386 my second). I have work with Wordstar, Word, and (La)Tex when they were in their infancy. I have studied Physic

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

Please, please take this discussion off this list. This is not the appropriate forum for it. Dominik On 30 September 2010 10:50, Keith J. Schultz wrote: > Hi, > > Tobias bist du des Wahnsinns!! (Sorry, Tobias way over-board here) > > I hate to say this nobody actually needs TeX&Co Nowadays.

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

Hi, Tobias bist du des Wahnsinns!! (Sorry, Tobias way over-board here) I hate to say this nobody actually needs TeX&Co Nowadays. (See my next post) Not to say that they are the better system for doing things. TeX et al is for typesetting, layout and publishing that is its sole purpose! It was de

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

Hear, hear. The voice of reason. There's really no point in editor-wars. As Phil rightly says, the choice of editing program is intensely personal. It's often determined by all sorts of factors that aren't obviously logical. Much the best thing

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

Hi, there are three kinds of people who should learn TeX&Co: - those who absolutely need TeX, because no other system let's them produce the documents they have to (all this linguistis and co. [don't take offense, I have no idea of the professions around this topic]) - those who can use other

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

Mike Maxwell wrote: Maybe: books which need to be nicely typeset (probably not your average paperback), pamphlets, some kinds of technical articles (particularly math), multilingual documents where at least one of the languages uses a complex script, dictionaries. All of the above: also, anyone

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

On Sep 29, 2010, at 9:49 PM, Mike Maxwell wrote: On 9/29/2010 9:29 PM, Herbert Schulz wrote: Take a look at and be amazed. Yes, I've looked at this (and I'm looking at it now), but again I ask: who should the audience be for this lshort document, and who on th

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

Alan Munn wrote: Why should the average person need to learn to program a computer? It's like asking why they should learn to repair their fridge. But of course when a student bumps up against TeX, they are confronted with many things which are truly out of their actual experience with

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

Herbert Schulz wrote: On Sep 29, 2010, at 8:19 PM, Mike Maxwell wrote: ... Maybe a few people use it to produce greeting cards or wedding invitations or something. Howdy, Take a look at and be amazed. Not that that is really representative of w

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

On 9/29/2010 9:29 PM, Herbert Schulz wrote: Take a look at and be amazed. Yes, I've looked at this (and I'm looking at it now), but again I ask: who should the audience be for this lshort document, and who on the other hand is not an appropriate target for pros

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

On Sep 29, 2010, at 8:19 PM, Mike Maxwell wrote: > ... > Maybe a few people use it to produce greeting cards or wedding invitations > or something. Howdy, Take a look at and be amazed. Not that that is really representative of what folks do with TeX. I jus

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

On Sep 29, 2010, at 8:17 PM, Will Robertson wrote: > On 2010-09-30 07:10:07 +0930, Philipp Stephani said: > >> [Beginners] don't know what a text file or a text editor is, they have never >> heard the word "Unicode", and they have never used a programming language >> before. What they need ar

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

On 9/29/2010 8:39 PM, Andy Lin wrote: lshort needs to be updated, not just because it's missing sections on Unicode and XeTeX. It's also working under the assumption that people will *need* to use the command line in order to process a document. This should be a concern to anyone who's looked at

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

On 2010-09-30 07:10:07 +0930, Philipp Stephani said: [Beginners] don't know what a text file or a text editor is, they have never heard the word "Unicode", and they have never used a programming language before. What they need are step- by-step instructions that tell them, in simple words, h

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

On Sep 29, 2010, at 6:58 PM, Alan Munn wrote: > ... > Now for some off topic continuation: > > I would be willing to bet that *fewer* high school/college students have ever > written a computer program now than 20 or 30 years ago. Instead, what gets > taught (if anything) is how to use (and I

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

lshort needs to be updated, not just because it's missing sections on Unicode and XeTeX. It's also working under the assumption that people will *need* to use the command line in order to process a document. This should be a concern to anyone who's looked at it recently. And while lshort is a very

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

On Sep 29, 2010, at 6:53 PM, Khaled Hosny wrote: On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 06:42:42PM -0400, Alan Munn wrote: On Sep 29, 2010, at 5:59 PM, Peter Dyballa wrote: Am 29.09.2010 um 23:40 schrieb Philipp Stephani: reality is approximately as follows: Users who read beginner documents such as ls

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 07:00:35PM -0400, Fr. Michael Gilmary wrote: > Khaled Hosny wrote: > > > >Well, I myself graduated last month, so... > > > So ... CONGRATULATIONS, Khaled! Thank you :) (though this was not the point :) ) -- Khaled Hosny Arabic localiser and member of Arabeyes.org te

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

Khaled Hosny wrote: Well, I myself graduated last month, so... So ... CONGRATULATIONS, Khaled! -- United in adoration of Jesus, fr. michael gilmary, mma Most Holy Trinity Monastery 67 Dugway Road Petersham, MA 01366-9725 www.MaroniteMonks.org -

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 06:42:42PM -0400, Alan Munn wrote: > > On Sep 29, 2010, at 5:59 PM, Peter Dyballa wrote: > > > > >Am 29.09.2010 um 23:40 schrieb Philipp Stephani: > > > >>reality is approximately as follows: Users who read beginner > >>documents such as lshort don't want to use TeX, but a

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

On Sep 29, 2010, at 5:59 PM, Peter Dyballa wrote: Am 29.09.2010 um 23:40 schrieb Philipp Stephani: reality is approximately as follows: Users who read beginner documents such as lshort don't want to use TeX, but are forced to do so by their advisor. They don't want to read discussions abo

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

Philipp Stephani wrote: Beginners usually know how to visit web sites and how to create simple documents in Microsoft Word OK, so let's teach them how to create Unicode TeX sources using MS Word :-) Just as an experiment, I tried it; the "Save as" was the hard part, since UTF-8 was not offe

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

Am 29.09.2010 um 23:40 schrieb Philipp Stephani: reality is approximately as follows: Users who read beginner documents such as lshort don't want to use TeX, but are forced to do so by their advisor. They don't want to read discussions about the pros and cons of various text editors or why

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

Am 29.09.2010 um 21:26 schrieb Philip Taylor (Webmaster, Ret'd): > > > Tobias Schoel wrote: > >> I wouldn't recommend anything other than kile for linux users. for me it >> offers the fastest way of texing. >> >> I tried emacs when we got the task of learning and testing a bit of lisp >> in u

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

Tobias Schoel wrote: I wouldn't recommend anything other than kile for linux users. for me it offers the fastest way of texing. I tried emacs when we got the task of learning and testing a bit of lisp in university, but I didn't get the feeling "I'm becoming better and using this program seem

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

Hi, I wouldn't recommend anything other than kile for linux users. for me it offers the fastest way of texing. I tried emacs when we got the task of learning and testing a bit of lisp in university, but I didn't get the feeling "I'm becoming better and using this program seems to be an impro

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

On 29-09-2010 8:33, Keith J. Schultz wrote: I am neither a beginner nor a "dumb user" (which do not exist) but I will not touch Emacs with a ten foot pole. As far as short cuts and scripts are concerned I have the in TeXShop. Emacs is even intimidating to the intermediate developer. Do not get m

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

I am neither a beginner nor a "dumb user" (which do not exist) but I will not touch Emacs with a ten foot pole. As far as short cuts and scripts are concerned I have the in TeXShop. Emacs is even intimidating to the intermediate developer. Do not get me wrong, it is very powerful and extendable.

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

I do not think there should be any specific editor prposed. Instead a chapter about entering unicode and a few of the most popular editors and viewers should be listed with a short run down of the ups and downs. regards Keith. Am 28.09.2010 um 16:20 schrieb Tobias Schoel: > Hi

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

Hi Khaled, I did not intend to say anybody was insulting an another, but the debate was getting there. The question would be is what is a UI inconsistency. Windows has conventions which are roughly followed. Apple has HIG which one is supposed (has to) adh

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

On 9/28/2010 5:42 PM, Peter Dyballa wrote: By learning to use accelerating keyboard shortcuts one gains more time Where I *really* gain time is by defining the control+alpha keys for cursor control, because cursor control is what I do most (other than type text). That way I never have to mo

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

On Sep 28, 2010, at 5:42 PM, Peter Dyballa wrote: Am 28.09.2010 um 22:44 schrieb Philipp Stephani: Am 28.09.2010 um 21:16 schrieb Peter Dyballa: Am 28.09.2010 um 16:20 schrieb Tobias Schoel: Can we now come back to the beginning problem: Which way of creating unicode-encoded .tex-documen

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

Am 29.09.2010 um 00:02 schrieb David J. Perry: Windoof user have to be hardened by ugly UI. What about "losedos"? I am (mostly) a Windows user but am neither stupid nor a loser. All OSs have their imperfections, people have different reasons for what they use, so let's stay on task he

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

On Sep 28, 2010, at 4:42 PM, Peter Dyballa wrote: > > Am 28.09.2010 um 22:44 schrieb Philipp Stephani: > >> Am 28.09.2010 um 21:16 schrieb Peter Dyballa: >> >>> >>> Am 28.09.2010 um 16:20 schrieb Tobias Schoel: >>> Can we now come back to the beginning problem: Which way of creatin

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

Windoof user have to be hardened by ugly UI. What about "losedos"? I am (mostly) a Windows user but am neither stupid nor a loser. All OSs have their imperfections, people have different reasons for what they use, so let's stay on task here without insults. David --

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

Am 28.09.2010 um 22:44 schrieb Philipp Stephani: Am 28.09.2010 um 21:16 schrieb Peter Dyballa: Am 28.09.2010 um 16:20 schrieb Tobias Schoel: Can we now come back to the beginning problem: Which way of creating unicode-encoded .tex-documents to propose in lshort? Using GNU Emacs 23.x –

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

On 28-09-2010 21:44, Philipp Stephani wrote: Can we now come back to the beginning problem: Which way of creating unicode-encoded .tex-documents to propose in lshort? Using GNU Emacs 23.x – the Unicode Emacs (and any of its variants) – with its AUCTeX extension. I use the same technology, b

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

Am 28.09.2010 um 21:16 schrieb Peter Dyballa: > > Am 28.09.2010 um 16:20 schrieb Tobias Schoel: > >> Can we now come back to the beginning problem: >> Which way of creating unicode-encoded .tex-documents to propose in lshort? > > Using GNU Emacs 23.x – the Unicode Emacs (and any of its variants

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 Peter Dyballa wrote: > Am 28.09.2010 um 16:20 schrieb Tobias Schoel: > >> Can we now come back to the beginning problem: >> Which way of creating unicode-encoded .tex-documents to propose in >> lshort? > > Using GNU Emacs 23.x √ the Unicode Emacs (and any of its variants) √

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

Am 28.09.2010 um 16:20 schrieb Tobias Schoel: Can we now come back to the beginning problem: Which way of creating unicode-encoded .tex-documents to propose in lshort? Using GNU Emacs 23.x – the Unicode Emacs (and any of its variants) – with its AUCTeX extension. One can either set all TE

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

Hi, this discussion does indeed seem to get hot. (Wrong adjective?) The arguments concerning user expectance and user experience of windows UI have been exchanged, (The simples solution -- porting kile to windoof and using a pdf viewer which doesn't grab&hold its file -- is of course out of r

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort[slightly OT]

On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 09:50:53AM +0200, Keith J. Schultz wrote: > Heh, Michiel and Khaled, > > Slow a minute take a deep breath. > No need to get nasty! Sorry if I offended any one, non was intended. I just wanted to point that no one really cares about UI inconsistency (except UI nazis, of cou

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

Am 28.09.2010 um 02:20 schrieb David J. Perry: > As a relative newcomer to Xe(La)TeX, and proponent of Unicode and > multilingual computing for 15+ years, I was very surprised by the lack of > Unicode support in the TeX world. I think what lshort and other tutorials > need is a very clear and

Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

Hi! Le 28/09/2010 7:42, Michiel Kamermans a écrit : On 9/27/2010 8:53 PM, Khaled Hosny wrote: You know, because Windows has the most consistent user interface an OS ever had. (From some one who is yet to see two "native" Windows applications that behave the same) Yeah, yeah, look, my name is

  1   2   >