Re: ConLang Journal

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).

Replies