Re: Why rst2newlatex instead of rst2tex?

On 11/3/07, John Gabriele <jmg3000 <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2. Why rst2newlatex instead of rst2tex? That is, if you're using
> LaTeX, but not taking advantage of all its predefined commands
> (instead just using it for raw formatting), why not just use Plain TeX
> instead and cut out the extra layer? Seems like this is exactly what
> Plain TeX was meant for.

A portion of a post by Felix W. in October 2005 seems to answer my question:

| > Out of curiosity, I wonder if the underlying goal is really
| > a TeX writer rather than a LaTeX writer.
|
| No.  I considered limiting myself to pure TeX (to make the output usable
| in other TeX-based systems), but I've found that, besides my own lack of
| knowledge about pure TeX, we actually need a lot of the functionality of
| LaTeX, technically and in terms of do-the-right-thing typesetting
| knowledge.

I'm guessing he means Plain TeX there where he writes "pure TeX".

---John

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/