1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
|
\centerline{\bf Standards}
\medskip
\noindent
\TeX\ is a standard. It is
rigidly defined; every implementation of \TeX\ must pass
the `trip' test before it has the right to describe itself
as `\TeX'. Even the components of \TeX\ are standards; {\tt
dvi} format is defined rigorously; even the format
of {\tt pxl}, {\tt pk}, and {\tt gf} is defined. Thanks
to this standardisation, every user of \TeX\ (\LaTeX\ and
\AmSTeX) knows that he or she can expect the same results
from the same input, no matter what equipment they use to
prepare their document. This is a degree of standardisation
which is unheard of outside the \TeX\ world.
There are areas within the \TeX\ world without adequate
standards. Some of these have been at least considered by
the \TeX\ community.
Both device driver standards and macro-writing standards
have been the subject of working parties: the driver
standards working party has made some preliminary
announcements, but the macro-writing standards working
party seems to be moribund. Other areas
require consideration, including the handling of {\b\tt
special}s, but this may be tackled by the driver standards
people.
But there are wider standards which affect us in the
\TeX\ world. The \TeX\ world is only a small (and many
would argue, privileged) part of then `document' world.
There are international and {\it de facto} standards
which are of critical importance to us.
We have to acknowledge the importance of the {\em de
facto} standard, \PS{}. In a sense, \TeX\ `sits above'
\PS{}. No-one (well, almost no-one), would ever dream of
writing a document in straight \PS{}. Normally, we write a
program which generates \PS\ -- for example, \TeX{}.
Nevertheless, we must be aware of the way in which \PS-%
compatibility is crucial if we are to be taken seriously
by the rest of the world. We must have an acceptable
answer to the question `Can you generate \PS?', even if we
feel that the question is ill-posed.
The first `international'
standard which is of importance to us is \sgml{}, the
Standard Generalized Markup Language. \TeX\ is itself a
markup language, but \sgml\ takes this one step further to
become divorced completely from the realm of typesetting.
\LaTeX\ has a closer affinity to \sgml, although it does
not go quite far enough. While it is possible to argue
that the basic paradigm of \sgml\ is flawed, its
widespread acceptance and use (by, among others the US
DoD, and the EEC) demands that we do not ignore it. Many
\sgml-based systems use \TeX\ (or \LaTeX) as the document
formatting engine.
But \sgml\ is an existing {\sc iso}
standard. An evolving standard of which we must be keenly
aware is {\sc oda} (Office Document Architecture). One of
the objectives of {\sc oda} is to permit the
electronic interchange of documents over open systems.
In the \TeX\ world we would argue that this has already
been achieved. One aspect of concern to {\sc oda} is
mathematical text. Again, we would argue that this has
already been achieved. Sadly, the way that national and
international standards are created does not ensure that
the best {\em de facto} standard becomes enshrined in the
ultimate {\sc iso} standard. At present, the various {\sc
oda} national committees and panels are considering the
input of mathematics. The principal submission which has
been received suggests the use of \eqn{}. This
is a somewhat limited and limiting approach. It is of the
utmost importance that we in the \TeX\ world promote the
other alternatives that we know (and love).
We can live outside the `standards world'. It is
possible. But it is uncomfortable, and ultimately it will
lead to atrophy. We should ensure that decisions, like
those to become part of the {\sc oda} standard, are made
with reference to a wide spectrum of possibilities. It
may be that \TeX\ is inappropriate to {\sc oda}. But that
conclusion must be reached by active and informed debate,
not by ignorance and apathy.
\smallskip
\rightline{\sl Malcolm Clark}
|
