vdhoeven

4 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by vdhoeven 5y ago

   There is another far lest costly thing that we can (should) do and that was long on my wish list (less and less high with the higher resolution screens :) The idea would be to see words that are "broken" into characters and use a
2. 2.▲
   by vdhoeven 5y ago

   I agree that having more converters would be nice. But which formats are most urgent? A high school teacher would argue that we should support conversions for Word. Programmers would stress that we support Markdown or Pandoc. GNU hacker
3. 3.▲
   by vdhoeven 5y ago

   I think that this issue was very interesting twenty years ago. With modern high resolution screens, I have to admit that we no longer bother too much... In the future, we might only use Opentype fonts and use a font like TeX Gyre Pagella a
4. 4.▲
   by vdhoeven 5y ago

   It is not my intention to sound aggressive, but just to get things straight. I understand from the original comment that the author likes to use TeXmacs, but that (s)he thinks that the proclaimed incompatibility with LaTeX is too big a dra
5. 5.▲
   by vdhoeven 5y ago

   I would like to see what kind of documents cannot be imported from LaTeX, because the LaTeX -> TeXmacs converter works correctly or nearly correctly on thousands of documents from ArXiv. There is also an option for conservative conversio
6. 6.▲
   by vdhoeven 5y ago

   See also https://www.texmacs.org/tmweb/home/news.en.html
7. 7.▲
   by vdhoeven 5y ago

   Yes, the name choice is indeed unfortunate and one of my biggest regrets concerning TeXmacs. But it is difficult to change the name now, because that would imply having to redo a lot of documentation, web pages, videos, etc.
8. 8.▲
   by vdhoeven 5y ago

   Both conversions from and to LaTeX are of top quality. The conversion from LaTeX into TeXmacs have been tested on a large number of documents downloaded from ArXiv. The conservative conversion options are experimental, but they can be used