PDF: Still unfit for human consumption, 20 years later

Re:PDF: Still unfit for human consumption, 20 years later by Akronymus on Tuesday August 11, 2020 @10:05AM (#24120353)

It'd be awesome if it were possible to host (La)TeX files directly over the web.

Altough, for most people a non wysiwyg editor is too cumbersome.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:PDF: Still unfit for human consumption, 20 years later by dash2 on Tuesday August 11, 2020 @10:08AM (#24120376)

This would be a horrible nightmare. LaTeX is an atrocious mess that deserves to die. Source: personal experience trying to build a decent programmatic table creator for LaTeX.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:PDF: Still unfit for human consumption, 20 years later by CryoLogic on Tuesday August 11, 2020 @10:42AM (#24120745)

Most of the publishing industry still uses .docx, some of the more advanced publishers have moved over to ASCIIDoc - personally I think Markdown is the easiest to use for a big project (having written and published a technical book prior).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:PDF: Still unfit for human consumption, 20 years later by floatboth on Tuesday August 11, 2020 @11:55AM (#24121756)

Except for scientific publishing, where LaTeX is king.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:PDF: Still unfit for human consumption, 20 years later by bjoli on Tuesday August 11, 2020 @12:35PM (#24122286)

Most people I know use org mode with inline latex for stuff that needs to be latex.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:PDF: Still unfit for human consumption, 20 years later by Akronymus on Tuesday August 11, 2020 @10:30AM (#24120622)

Hence the (La) part being optional. Normal TeX isn't bad at all, from what I can see.

[ Parent | on HN ]