2 ms·
Alternately, you could rely exclusively on a TeX export utility and make a clean, less verbose language that compiles to TeX. Then existing packages could be ei
by TTPrograms 12y ago
Alternately, you could rely exclusively on a TeX export utility and make a clean, less verbose language that compiles to TeX. Then existing packages could be either wrapped similarly or inserted as TeX blocks.
- ivan_ah 12y agoon that note, check out the combo https://github.com/softcover/softcover/ https://github.com/softcover/softcover/ + https://github.com/softcover/polytexnic/ https://github.com/softcover/polytexnic/ which is a very good first start on that approach: markdown --> .tex ____ pdflatex --> .pdf \ \___ tralics --> ruby_scripts --> .epub
- _delirium 12y agoI think one reason most people wanting a next-gen-TeX project don't aim to compile to TeX is that some of the biggest pain points of TeX are baked into the core. So if you want to improve them, you need to change or replace at least some of the core layout algorithms, not just the front-end input language. For example a big wishlist item for many years has been some kind of improvement on TeX's quite frustrating figure placement, possibly with a more pluggable layout algorithm.