Quote:
Originally Posted by nick_
Definitely.
However, there is also the point that Tex was created with the goal of producing something that can be printed. It is very precise and capable for this.
It was not created for screens that can very widely in sizes and pixels. It is not the right tool to handle those. That's why it is not used by the vast majority of people.
|
This is all true too, but it's actually changed quite a lot in recent years, and could be made to adapt more. One way I'd like to see it adapted is to see it be modified to make XHTML mark-up (it actually already can handle HTML with certain packages, but not all XHTML), but still retain its advanced typography algorithms for layout, etc. Probably a wrapper could be made to have LaTeX take ePubs as input. (In fact, I know next to nothing about programming, and I think I could write such a program in a manner of weeks if I actually had leave from work.)
Or I have no problem with something new being created to render XHTML source well, but my point is that since something with decent typography on the fly already exists, why shouldn't we demand something at least as good?
(If it can handle different page sizes, it can handle different screen sizes, however. You're making WAY too much of that. Indeed, it has a microtypography package especially designed for cramped quarters. What does (X)HTML have?)
And as for "pixels" (I assume you mean resolution, unless you just meant size again redundantly), I'm not aware of any browser or other software that displays (X)HTML source differently depending on the resolution of the screen it appears on--only the size measured in pixels (which LaTeX does just as well).