Hi Giovanni, On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 01:56:13PM +0100, Giovanni Piredda wrote: > >However you need also to add that the \extern primitive allows to > >access these computational capabilities with an underlying > >scripting language. Here the comparison can be made with HTML/JS. > > And the native macro system too pushes one outside the markup system, right?
One has to distinguish between the 'syntax' of a document (the way a parser should understand it) and its actual 'semantics'. The _syntax_ of TeXmacs documents is relatively simple: anyone can write a parser for TeXmacs documents. The semantics of TeXmacs is more complex, since you may need to evaluate macros or extern constructs. The same holds for Html+Javascript. In the case of TeX/LaTeX, there is no clean distinction between syntax and semantics, whence the problems for parsing and converting LaTeX. > Finally, for my remark that TeX is the easiest to read "markup" that > I know, it occurred to me that the format of computer algebra > systems is still easier to read; but perhaps it is not comprehensive > enough to be used for typesetting a document, and if you include > more syntactic expressions so that it is, it becomes as difficult to > read as TeX at least. Maybe I will experiment a bit with > Mathematica, which as far as I remember can format mathematical > expressions as well; I need to express all input in linear form of > course otherwise it is easier to read but the comparison is unfair ;-) This is getting more and more off-topic. Best wishes, --Joris _______________________________________________ Texmacs-dev mailing list Texmacs-dev@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/texmacs-dev
