Re: ConLang Journal

I don't know why I just got this, given I sent it 5 days ago - it's
making points that have since been made by others, so if you're just
seeing it now it's of limited relevance.

Tim May writes:
 > H. S. Teoh writes:
 >  > On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 03:26:05PM -0400, Paul Edson wrote:
 >  > > I fear that a "lowest common denominator" needs to be
 >  > > established somewhere, and it seems that plaintext is
 >  > > awfully limiting in terms of format--simple font
 >  > > distinctions can clarify interlinear translation or example
 >  > > passages immensely. Assuming that the volume isn't
 >  > > particularly high (and I can't imagine it would be!), I
 >  > > could probably manage to do the basics for converting
 >  > > plaintext to RTF or HTML (indents for examples, font
 >  > > contrasts as needed, etc...) and pass the results on to
 >  > > Christophe.
 >  > [snip]
 >  >
 >  > I don't mind writing HTML by hand. I do it all the time. It *is* plaintext
 >  > in its underlying representation, so that is not a barrier for me. The
 > Note that this is also true of LaTeX.
 >
 >  > problem with RTF is that it has a different encoding from plaintext, and
 >  > hence not supported by the tools I have. If plaintext is too "limited" for
 >  > people's tastes, let's go for HTML, which is a universally accepted
 >  > Internet standard.
 >
 > As I understand it, Christophe wants to do the thing in LaTeX, and RTF
 > is okay because it can be converted to LaTeX automatically.  Possibly
 > there are utilities which perform a similar conversion from HTML - I
 > know that the reverse exists.
 >
 > The problem with HTML, I'm guessing, is that it's not really designed
 > for formatting printed materials, wheras LaTeX is (I'm not competant
 > with either, myself, so I can't go into much more detail).

Reply