# [XeTeX] TeX in the modern World. (goes OT) Was: Re: Whitespace in input

Zdenek Wagner zdenek.wagner at gmail.com
Fri Nov 18 11:36:38 CET 2011

2011/11/18 Keith J. Schultz <keithjschultz at web.de>:
> Hi All,
> Sorry, I go OT here, but in order to debate it is necessary.

Hi all,
I agree with Keith, I have just a few comments.

> I have to side more with Philip.
> What most are forgetting is what (Xe)TeX is intended for.
> It is for most a typesetting program(you do mention this below).
> It was not designed to handle different languages or actually truly
> do wordprocessing in the modern sense.
> Due to the power of the TeX engine, it evolved to deal with different
> languages
> and newer output methods and encodings. The problem with TeX that the basic
> engine has not been redesigned to handle these new developments well.
> The internals need to be completely revamped.
> Am 17.11.2011 um 20:36 schrieb Ross Moore:
>
> Hi Phil,
> On 17/11/2011, at 23:53, Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor at Rhul.Ac.Uk> wrote:
>
> Keith J. Schultz wrote:
>
> You mention in a later post that you do consider a space as a printable
> character.
>
>    This line should read as:
>
>          You mention in a later post that you consider a space as a
> non-printable character.
>
> No, I don't think of it as a "character" at all, when we are talking
> about typeset output (as opposed to ASCII (or Unicode) input).
>
> This is fine, when all that you require of your output is that it be visible
> on
> a printed page. But modern communication media goes much beyond that.
> A machine needs to be able to tell where words and lines end, reflowing
> paragraphs when appropriate and able to produce a flat extraction of all the
> text, perhaps also with some indication of the purpose of that text (e.g. by
> structural tagging).
>
OK, tagged PDF is an option, but it is an optional feature, it is not
enforced. You can never be sure that the PDF you get ans an input will
be tagged. Even if spaces were stored as glyph, the original structure
will be lost. I typeset documents where even a paragraph is originally
a nested structure of elements...

> I would agree with you, but TeX was not designed as a communications
> program, it was designed for creating printed media.
> Furthermore, it may be desirable in the Modern World to have every programs
> out used as input for another program.
> This ideal is utopia. If you need the output from one program(media) to
> another then you will need a intermediate program/filter
> in order to reformat/convert the differences. As with all types of
> communication there will be structures missing/lacking in the other
> system. So a one to one conversion will not be possible. You will need to
> use some kind of heuristics or in modern terms intelligence.
>
> In short, what is output for one format should also be able to serve as
> input for another.
>
> This assertion is completely idealistic. Then again, it is true. It is
> possibly, today, to design a system that goes from audio, to TeX, to printed
> documents
> to audio again. Yet, you will need a lot of effort and most likely the
> results will be far from perfect. Though it is workable and require
> considerable
> resources.
>
> Thus the space certainly does play the role of an output character - though
> the presence of a gap in the positioning of visible letters may serve this
> role in many, but not all, circumstances.
>
> This depends on what you are outputting. For a printed page and is consumed
> by a human it goes not matter, because humans do not process space
> characters just space, and they even
> at times ignore them completely, because it is irrelevant for their natural
> language processing.
> For computers on the other hand the use of a space character can be very
> relevant.
> In the early days of TeX and LaTeX I have know people to create their e-mail
> with TeX. So you can see TeX is capable of outputting character based
> output.
> Furthermore, TeX could be used to produce any form of character based
> formats as its output.
>
> Clearly
> it is a character on input, but unless it generates a glyph in the
> output stream (which TeX does not, for normal spaces) then it is not
> a character (/qua/ character) on output but rather a formatting
> instruction not dissimilar to (say) end-of-line.
>
> But a formatting instruction for one program cannot serve as reliable input
> for another.
> A heuristic is then needed, to attempt to infer that a programming
> instruction must have been used, and guess what kind of instruction it might
> have been. This is not 100% reliable, so is deprecated in modern methods of
> data storage and document formats.
>
> Are you not contradicting yourself here! See above.
>
> XML based formats use tagging, rather that programming instructions. This is
> the modern way, which is used extensively for communicating data between
> different software systems.
>
> True it is used, for communicating data. Yet, you are misconceived in
> thinking that it truly solves any of the problems involved different data
> types or content!
> You can get a parse tree of the data, yet if a program can not understand or
> process the data/content it is useless.
> Agreed the XML file contains information about it structure and is human
> readable, yet it does NOTHING, for convert from one format to another. You
> still need a parser/filter to
> convert into another format.
> Do not forget you can put practically anything in an XML file; a program,
> image, TeX file, PDF, etc. Though I would not advise it.
>
XML is much easier. Its structure can be defined by XML Schema, Relax
NG, Schematron, NVDL. Validators exist even as libraries so that it is
possible to validat the intermediate XML before it is sent to another
program. Transformation to a diferent XML schema is possible with XSLT
and the result can again be validated. You can do a lot of things
using just freely available tools.
>
> ** Phil.
>
> TeX's strength is in its superior ability to position characters on the page
> for maximum visual effect. This is done by producing detailed programming
> instructions within the content stream of the PDF output. However, this is
> not enough to meet the needs of formats such as EPUB, non-visual reading
> software, archival formats, searchability, and other needs.
>
> You are probably a little young to know this, but TeX's original output
> format was a dvi file. Only more recent engines produce PDF. It is possible
> to create engines that output EPUB. If your TeX skills are adequate enough
> you
> do not even need to create a new engine. TeX has the ability to output files
> in any format if you know how to do it.
>
Before I learned XML, I took data from MySQL using PHP, formated them
using TeX macros and then via LaTeX created dvi -> ps as well as web
pages. I mean, LaTeX wrote directly HTML by \write.

> Tagged PDF can be viewed as Adobe's response to address these requirements
> as an extension of the visual aspects of the PDF format. It is a direction
> in which TeX can (and surely must) move, to stay relevant within the
> publishing industry of the future.
>
> TeX used to be a industry standard. The innovations of processing power has
> evolved that the use of it in the publishing industry has made it
> inefficient and other system are
> easier and faster for humans to operate.
> That TeX has survived this long is amazing. Yet, it remains one of the most
> powerful and cheapest typesetting systems to date.
> regards
> Keith.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
>  http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
>
>

--
Zdeněk Wagner
http://hroch486.icpf.cas.cz/wagner/
http://icebearsoft.euweb.cz