[lug] LaTeX to Word Doc/RTF

[Ed Hill]

On Tue, 2002-02-19 at 14:36, J. Wayde Allen wrote:
> On 19 Feb 2002, Ed Hill wrote:
> 
> > >    - Is LaTeX simply getting to be too old?  
> > 
> > Its still just as good (better!) than it ever was.  ;-)
> 
> Well yes, but the question has more to do with continued evolution and
> global acceptance.  My feeling is that the number of LaTeX users is
> shrinking rather than growing.  Part of the reason for this feeling comes
> from a recent interaction I had with a technical magazine that wanted to
> publish one of my papers, but that had never heard of LaTeX.

Doesn't surprise me at all.  Plenty of journals have never used (La)TeX
and probably never will.


> > >    - Is Docbook a better choice today?
> > 
> > Having used both, I'd say that they are just different tools suited to
> > different purposes.  Docbook is great for manuals, HOWTOs, etc. since it
> > supports so many display formats.  But if you need to do extensive
> > mathematical notation or if you need fine-grained control of formatting
> > and are fine with just PDF or PS output then I think LaTeX is hard to
> > beat.
> 
> Not really certain you answered the question.  LaTeX is also great for
> manuals, HowTo's, etc., and also supports many display formats.  Your
> comment begs the question - what makes these tools really different?
>
> I was curious about the mathematical formating capabilities of Docbook in
> relation to LaTeX.  LaTeX being very strong in this area.  I have also
> been wondering about the formatting issues.  At one level it seems that
> the Docbook DTD is similar to the LaTeX style or class files.  That
> `could' imply fine grained formatting control.  
> 
> My `feeling' for what it is worth is that LaTeX exists in a kind of middle
> ground between a content based mark up style language and the detailed
> layout capabilities of a typesetting language.  For instance, our research
> papers are required by the editorial review board to adhere to a strict
> typographical format, and I'm certain that LaTeX can provide this while at
> the same time offering a degree of content mark up.  I'm not so sure that
> Docbook can?  That is part of what I'm wanting to understand.


"Feelings" ?

Look, when Docbook or some other free or inexpensive XML/SGML tool
produces good markup for something like the following (note: real
example pulled from my most recent manuscript):

\begin{eqnarray}
\mathrm{P}_{Y_i}\left(y_i|Z_i=z_i\right) &=& \Pr \left( Y_i=y_i |
X_i+Y_i=z_i \right) \\[0.05in]\nonumber &=&
\frac{\Pr\left[\left(Y_i=y_i\right)\bigcap
\left(X_i=z_i-y_i\right)\right]} {\Pr\left(X_i+Y_i=z_i\right)}
\\[0.05in]\nonumber &=&\frac{\left[ \DS
\frac{(\tau_y\lambda_i\theta_i)^{y_i}
e^{-\tau_y\lambda_i\theta_i}}{y_i!} \right]\left[ \DS
\frac{(\tau_x\lambda_i)^{z_i-y_i} e^{-\tau_x\lambda_i}}{(z_i-y_i)!}
\right]}{\left[ \DS  \frac{{[(\tau_x+\tau_y\theta_i)\lambda_i]}^{z_i}
e^{-(\tau_x+\tau_y\theta_i)\lambda_i}}{z_i!} \right]}
\\[0.05in]\nonumber &=& \frac{z_i!}{(z_i-y_i)! y_i!}
\left[\frac{(\tau_y\theta_i)^{y_i} (\tau_x)^{z_i-y_i}}
{(\tau_x+\tau_y\theta_i)^{z_i}}\right] \\[0.05in]\nonumber &=&
\frac{z_i!}{\left(z_i-y_i\right)!y_i!}
\left(\frac{\tau_y\theta_i}{\tau_x+\tau_y\theta_i}\right)^{y_i}
\left(\frac{\tau_x}{\tau_x+\tau_y\theta_i}\right)^{z_i-y_i}
\\[0.05in]\nonumber &=& \mathrm{C}_{y_i}^{z_i}
\left(\frac{\tau_y\theta_i}{\tau_x+\tau_y\theta_i}\right)^{y_i}
\left(\frac{\tau_x}{\tau_x+\tau_y\theta_i}\right)^{z_i-y_i}, \quad
y_i=0,1,\dots,z_i\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}

I'll gladly try it.  And even switch to it from LaTeX if it offers any
real advantages.  Hey, I'm not a (La)TeX bigot.  Its just a good tool.

And, AFAIK, the above can't be done in Docbook.  But I'll be happy to be
proven wrong as I'd enjoy having other options for math formatting and
presentation.

Ed

ps - Can Docbook do automatic marginal line numbering as required 
     by some journals?  Its relatively easy to do in LaTeX...


-- 
Edward H. Hill III, PhD
Post-Doctoral Researcher   |  Email:       ed at eh3.com, ehill at mines.edu
Division of ESE            |  URL:         http://www.eh3.com
Colorado School of Mines   |  Phone:       303-273-3483
Golden, CO  80401          |  Fax:         303-273-3311
Key fingerprint = 5BDE 4DA1 66BE 4F7B BC17  3A0C 932B 7266 1E76 F123