Re: [Texmacs-dev] major barrier to adoption

[Henri Lesourd]

Amir Michail wrote:

> Except that you can't import TeX/LaTeX flawlessly.  So it's
>  
More precisely, what you can't import flawlessy
is the TeX low-level horrors.

But as soon as your LaTeX is clean (i.e. : it uses
only macros built on a set of clean primitives),
then if the import is not absolutely perfect
right now (although it is already quite good),
it can definitely be lead to the point of
perfection, it's just a matter of time (and
contributions ;-).


> misleading.  Maybe "BeyondTeX" would be a good name?
>
>  
I agree that in its current incarnation, the name is
misleading.

But the fact remains that (from an historical point
of view, and from a very concrete point of view, too)
TeXmacs *is* rooted in LaTeX.


What you say makes me think about a perhaps sensible
approach to tackle this problem (this is perhaps
the only one) : work for identifying a *clean*
subset of TeX / LaTeX, and implement this "perfect
subset" of TeX / LaTeX flawlessly.


This way, we could claim that we *are* TeX/LaTeX
for one part, and define exactly what TeXmacs
is and is not, and in the same time justify
precisely *why* the part of TeX/LaTeX we implement
is the "clean" and reasonable one.

To do this would be a long way home, but it would
probably improve a lot the understanding of our
choices...