[texhax] typset mistranslates the anglbrackets

Reinhard Kotucha reinhard.kotucha at web.de
Tue Mar 19 01:15:14 CET 2013

On 2013-03-18 at 21:28:02 +0000, Philip TAYLOR wrote:
 > Reinhard Kotucha wrote:
 > > Phil, if 'plain' is not mentioned explicitely, I have to assume that
 > > it's about TeX in general, including LaTeX. ;)
 > Well, that is a moot point.  Does TeX include LaTeX ?  I would
 > argue not.  If someone says "How do I achieve X in TeX", I think
 > it is reasonable to assume that he or she means TeX, and not
 > LaTeX; if, on the other hand, they were to ask "How do I achieve
 > X in LaTeX", then clearly LaTeX is the Universe of Discourse
 > and not TeX.

Both, plain TeX and LaTeX are macro packages.  I don't understand why
one should be more "TeX" than the other.  Because one is from Knuth
and the other isn't?  Knuth always encouraged people to extend TeX.
Ask Knuth what he thinks about LaTeX.  I'm sure that the answer is not
what you expect.

But let's continue this discussion at Bachotek.
 > > Maurice, I don't know why you need < and > in ordinary text.  These
 > > symbols make only sense in math formulas, as far as I can see.  And
 > > for typesetting XML or HTML typewriter fonts are preferable.
 > In books on linguistics (such as Quirk), <Am.E> and <Br.E> are
 > regularly recurring terms.

Thanks for the hint.  I didn't consider this case.  But I would try
$\langle$/$\rangle$ here.  We don't have to stick with ASCII characters
only because non-TeX-users don't have another choice.  TeX is the


Reinhard Kotucha                                      Phone: +49-511-3373112
Marschnerstr. 25
D-30167 Hannover                              mailto:reinhard.kotucha at web.de
Microsoft isn't the answer. Microsoft is the question, and the answer is NO.

More information about the texhax mailing list