Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: filetypes for TeX, LaTeX, ConTeXT (others?)

Expand Messages
  • Gene Kwiecinski
    ... Kewl.. ... There s certainly REVTeX and BibTeX, rather big in the scientific community for writing up technical papers for publication. APS (.org,
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 2, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      > Up to vim 6.x, all TeX variants were given filetype tex . The
      >syntax file was aimed at LaTeX, and the ftplugin made some attempt to
      >accommodate both plain TeX and LaTeX. Under development, vim 7.0
      >includes syntax and ftplugin files for ConTeXt, with file type context.
      >I think it is time to have separate file types for plain TeX and LaTeX,
      >and would like input from all interested users.

      Kewl..


      >1. Are there other TeX variants (a.k.a. formats or flavors) that should
      >also be supported?

      There's certainly REVTeX and BibTeX, rather big in the scientific
      community for writing up technical papers for publication. APS (.org,
      American Physics Society) came out with it, so should be the source for
      documentation. Right off, goggling for "revtex standard", I found
      http://authors.aps.org/revtex4/ which towards the bottom gives a bunch
      of links for REVTex 3 and 4 standards, differences between 'em, author
      guides, sample BibTeX files (linked bibliographies), and such. There be
      plenty more relevant links immediately following that one, too.

      Go nuts.. :)


      >2. What file types should we use for plain TeX and LaTeX:
      > (a) tex for plain TeX and latex for LaTeX
      > (b) plaintex for plain TeX and tex for LaTeX
      > (c) other suggestions?

      > The argument for 2(a) is that it is more logical. The argument
      for

      You'd *want* to keep the names of the packages the same as the
      program/language that uses it. Ie, you would want for BASIC files
      'basic.vim', *not* 'basiclanguage.vim'.


      >2(b) is that it is more backwards compatible. That is, I think there
      >are a lot more users who use LaTeX and would have to make adjustments
      if
      >we changed their file types to latex than there are users of plain TeX
      >who would be bothered if they had to change to plaintex. Correct me if
      >I am wrong: I think there are not many scripts out there that support
      >plain TeX rather than LaTeX.

      Why perpetuate something that'd be wrong? Setup should be once and
      that's it, I imagine. If adjustments would have to be made to deal with
      the split, I don't see why it'd be that big a deal to change the file(s)
      to source, etc. Maybe I'm missing something, but from where I'm
      sitting, I don't think it'd be that big a deal.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.