Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #36779
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.forth |
| Subject | Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? |
| Date | 2015-02-23 19:18 -0500 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <mcgfvq$fl0$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (7 earlier) <e82f5ba6-5e2e-4b7f-8a53-06b3b1bad37a@googlegroups.com> <mcbujs$8vh$1@dont-email.me> <2a79ce2e-d6cb-4677-8edc-6644185e4972@googlegroups.com> <mcej10$i08$1@dont-email.me> <c04fec7b-79a6-4fa4-89ee-a21086e30d9b@googlegroups.com> |
On 2/23/2015 7:59 AM, krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org wrote: > On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 12:58:19 AM UTC-6, rickman wrote: >> On 2/22/2015 9:35 PM, krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org wrote: >>> On Sunday, February 22, 2015 at 12:57:49 AM UTC-6, rickman wrote: >>>> On 2/14/2015 1:14 PM, krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org wrote: >>>>> What an interesting idea to use LaTeX as the page typesetting language for a web browser. It makes a lot of sense, although, as Anton pointed out, TeX itself is probably not a suitable language for adding extensions. A browser supporting LaTeX ... it should be done. >>>> >>>> And then how are the many other features of HTML to be implemented? >>>> >>> >>> Isn't implementation a browser side issue? HTML simply provides the tags, per my understanding. TeX is extensible. There is no reason I can think of why it cannot be extended to provide features like forms. Of course, the browser would have to support the new specification for the layout of forms. >> >> And once you do that you end up with something much like HTML, no? I >> don't follow what the problem is that is in need of fixing much less how >> LaTex would do that. >> > > No, you do not end up with something like HTML -- that's the point. You apparently do not understand the difference between TeX/LaTeX and HTML. The latter is a crude approximation to a typesetting language. We already went over several issues about rendering web pages that would be better handled by TeX/LaTeX: 1) a unified approach to style (e.g. CSS) 2) separates content specification from appearance allowing the user to view a web page under his/her desired style, 3) integrated mathematics support, and 4) print-quality appearance. To see the latter, you might look at the difference between a printed html page and a printed TeX page. But apparently, you missed all of that from our earlier discussion. This entire comment misses my point or even *your* point of having to *add* to LaTex the missing functionality. You keep talking about the things that LaTex already does ignoring the issue of what is missing to work as a web browser. >>>> I think it is a bit of egotism to think that somehow using Tex for one >>>> small aspect of a web language would solve any problems. >>>> >>> >>> What does ego have to do with a discussion of replacing HTML typesetting tags with the much-richer and customizable language of TeX/LaTeX? Have you ever used either to produce a document? This is no small aspect of rendering a web page, as the afterthought add-on of CSS should indicate. >> >> HTML has gone far beyond just defining how a page looks. It defines how >> a page can be interacted with. Ego is thinking that the few people in >> this group have a good idea of what the problems are or how they can be >> fixed. >> > > Granted there may be other aspects of HTML that I am not considering at the moment. Now you are starting to understand... > But, in case you haven't heard of web publishing, that's a pretty big part of the web. But, apparently you choose to cover up your lack of knowledge about TeX/LaTeX by resorting to personal criticism instead. Next time, try making a constructive contribution by 1) first learning about TeX, 2) pointing out specific area(s) for which no advantage is gained. I really hope you are not a troll -- c.l.f. has enough of these. Rather I suggest that you learn something about what HTML does that can't be done with LaTex and understand the differences between typesetting a document and operating a web site. -- Rick
Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-02-12 12:13 -0800
Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-02-12 12:56 -0800
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? empty-buffers <empty.buffersYOU-DONT-WANT-THIS@gmail.NEITHER-THIS.com> - 2015-02-12 21:32 +0000
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-02-13 13:08 -0500
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-02-13 19:39 +0100
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-02-13 14:14 -0500
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-02-13 21:28 +0100
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-13 14:22 -0800
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-02-14 01:34 +0100
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-02-13 22:42 -0800
HTML vs. LaTeX (was: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ?) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-02-14 10:21 +0000
Re: HTML vs. LaTeX (was: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ?) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-02-14 19:37 +0100
Re: HTML vs. LaTeX (was: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ?) visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-02-14 11:13 -0800
Re: HTML vs. LaTeX (was: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ?) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-02-14 21:07 +0100
Re: HTML vs. LaTeX (was: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ?) Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-14 12:50 -0800
Re: HTML vs. LaTeX (was: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ?) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-02-14 22:32 +0100
Re: HTML vs. LaTeX (was: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ?) Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-14 15:10 -0800
Re: HTML vs. LaTeX (was: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ?) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-02-15 10:34 +0000
Re: HTML vs. LaTeX (was: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ?) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-02-15 22:15 +0100
Re: HTML vs. LaTeX (was: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ?) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-02-16 12:45 +0000
Re: HTML vs. LaTeX (was: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ?) krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-02-15 13:55 -0800
Re: HTML vs. LaTeX (was: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ?) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-02-16 13:52 +0000
Re: HTML vs. LaTeX (was: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ?) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-02-16 15:47 +0100
Re: HTML vs. LaTeX Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-02-16 09:05 -0800
Re: HTML vs. LaTeX anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-02-17 12:21 +0000
Re: HTML vs. LaTeX Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-02-20 13:23 -0800
Re: HTML vs. LaTeX Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-02-20 22:33 +0100
Re: HTML vs. LaTeX anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-02-21 15:14 +0000
Re: HTML vs. LaTeX Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-02-21 20:23 +0100
Re: HTML vs. LaTeX Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-02-21 11:33 -0800
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-02-14 10:14 -0800
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-02-22 01:57 -0500
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-02-22 18:35 -0800
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-02-23 01:58 -0500
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-02-23 04:59 -0800
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-02-23 19:18 -0500
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-02-23 18:09 -0800
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-02-24 01:04 -0800
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-02-24 02:51 -0800
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-24 10:23 -0800
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-02-23 21:19 +0100
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-02-23 17:58 -0800
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-02-24 01:07 -0800
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-02-24 02:19 -0800
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? Paul E Bennett <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2015-02-15 12:18 +0000
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? empty-buffers <empty.buffersYOU-DONT-WANT-THIS@gmail.NEITHER-THIS.com> - 2015-02-13 18:55 +0000
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-02-13 20:27 +0100
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-02-13 09:53 -1000
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-13 14:18 +0000
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-02-13 11:03 -0800
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-02-13 22:46 -0800
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-02-14 02:35 -0800
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2015-02-14 18:47 +0100
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-02-14 18:56 -0800
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2015-02-15 17:10 -0800
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-02-16 01:20 -0800
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2015-02-16 12:35 +0100
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-02-16 08:12 -1000
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2015-02-16 15:17 -0800
csiph-web