Peter Davis wrote:
I've been on the periphery of TeX for years, as a casual user of LaTeX and also as an implementer of publishing software. However, I'm afraid I haven't kept in as close touch as I'd like, and now I find myself trying to absorb a lot in a short time. I'm trying to choose what software to use in building an XML->TeX workflow.
I'd appreciate any help with the following questions:
1. True or False: TeX can be categorized along three orthogonal axes: 1. by format (plain TeX, LaTeX, ConTeXt, others?) 2. by implementation (web2c, pdfTeX/pdfLaTeX, LuaTeX, others?) 3. by distribution (MikTeX, TeXLive, MacTeX, others?)
2) is false; whilst "web2c" is a methodology and an basis for implementation, pdfTeX is a derivative, pdfLaTeX is simply LaTeX layered on top of PdfTeX, LuaTeX is a major fork, and so on.
2. True or False: plain TeX and LaTeX(2e) are warhorses ... been around for decades, quirks well known, lots of documentation, etc.
Yes, except that while Plain TeX has more-or-less remained static (modulo essential bug fixes by Don), LaTeX2e has continued to evolve. I have heard rumours that this particular evolutionary branch may have come to an end, but I have no definite knowledge of this.
3. True or False: ConTeXt is newer, with a lot of built-in features, but still changing quite a bit from build to build.
Context is a L O T newer : it has many devotees, but is still something of an outside to mainstream TeX usage.
Other comments welcome vis. picking which software to use. One point is that since the actual TeX input files will be generated programmatically, readability or ease-of-coding is not a factor. I was going to use plain TeX, but it seems a lot of features like placing text boxes and graphics anywhere, using system fonts, etc. are more available for LaTeX and ConTeXt.
Thank you for any comments!
Talk to River Valley and/or Sebastian Rahtz; both have considerable knowledge of the matters that interest you. Philip Taylor