Timeline for Researchers nowadays communicate via screens, not papers. LaTeX is not the right tool to write for screens. Why is it still the go-to for writing?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 2 at 8:43 | comment | added | Ooker | @TimRias can you elaborate on why is that? | |
| Mar 2 at 8:42 | comment | added | TimRias | @Ooker Theoretically maybe, but after decades of people trying, I think it is safe to conclude that is a pipe dream. | |
| Mar 2 at 8:39 | comment | added | Ooker | @TimRias I know. It's just that HTML is also widespread and I think theoretically can be made WYSIWIS as well. | |
| Mar 2 at 8:27 | comment | added | TimRias | @Ooker There is a widespread What-you-see-is-what-I-see standard. It is called PDF. | |
| Mar 2 at 7:07 | comment | added | Ooker | Nevertheless, I think theoretically we can have a standardized engine, and in your document you can specify what elements you want to be laid out and rendered exactly as you wish (I'll coin the term What-You-See-Is-What-I-See), and what elements the readers (and their browsers) can freely decide to display (What-You-See-Is-What-You-Decide). It's possible that there is one already. Do you think it also satisfies this need? | |
| Mar 2 at 7:00 | comment | added | Ooker | I agree that being forced is also a feature. That's basically what WYSIWYG or type system does. Beside size, position or font, there are also browser engine and language version to consider. Different browser engines can result in different layouts and renderings. And if HTML/JS has a new version, then you have to update the browser engine if you want new syntax be supported. Whereas if TeX has a new version, you don't have to update your PDF reader. | |
| Mar 2 at 6:42 | history | edited | MisterMiyagi | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 30 characters in body
|
| Mar 1 at 21:11 | comment | added | Nick J | As a scientist with equations in almost every paper I've written, I have yet to use anything other than a WYSIWYG document creation program. Usually msword, and there usually with whatever equation tool is bundled with it. I would put forward the hypothesis that THAT and NO learned markup language is the default and dominant condition. I also expect any publisher to have a web format and PDF format display of my papers, without me doing my own markup. 99% of the time this expectation has been correct in the past 20 years. I mean, they need to use those fees for something. | |
| Feb 29 at 15:55 | comment | added | Azor Ahai -him- | Ok, but by "people will be using a typesetting markup language" do you mean "... to typeset equations"? Most people I know write their papers in Google Docs or Word without touching a "typesetting markup language" | |
| Feb 29 at 15:54 | comment | added | MisterMiyagi | @AzorAhai-him- True, I've made the statement on scope less general. FWIW, I would claim that many typesetting systems are conceptually similar (in the sense of "you learn programming, not language X") but indeed outside of equations this quickly becomes more abstract than concrete. | |
| Feb 29 at 15:50 | history | edited | MisterMiyagi | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| Feb 29 at 15:49 | comment | added | Azor Ahai -him- | "For most scientists, learning LaTeX [is] something they have to do anyway." Citation needed. There are other sciences besides physics and computer science. You said "At the end of the day, people will be using a typesetting markup language" but then you talk about math typesetting. Those are different things, and even fewer scientists typeset equations. | |
| Feb 29 at 14:59 | vote | accept | Ooker | ||
| Feb 29 at 10:31 | history | edited | MisterMiyagi | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
This. Is. Not. For. Emphasis.
|
| Feb 29 at 9:46 | history | answered | MisterMiyagi | CC BY-SA 4.0 |