Talk:TeX/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Pronunciation of TeX

The pronunciation help is wrong. please cf. http://www.ling.hf.ntnu.no/ipa/full/ipachart_cons_pulm_fbmp3.html TeX derives from Greek technê and that is NOT pronounced with an IPA [x] or ['chi'] but with the fortis palatal fricative - IPA ["c with a diacritical ' at its bottom"]. So TeX is not pronounced like 'loch' or GER 'Bach' but like GER 'mich' or GER 'Technik'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.132.57.113 (talk • contribs) 09:21, 18 July 2004

Knuth writes in the TeXbook: "It's the `ch' sound in Scottish words like loch or German words like ach; it's a Spanish `j' and a Russian `kh'." I understand this as a clear description of [x], not [ç]. Perhaps Knuth belongs to the 99% majority of people who never heard about palatalization in Greek. --EJ 13:50, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Update: I just checked The Details of Modern Greek Phonetics and Phonology. Although it discusses Greek palatalization in depth, it nowhere suggests that consonants are palatalized after a front vowel, or when separated from the following front vowel by another consonant. Indeed, examples of velars in such a position show them unpalatalized: έχω [`εxo], γεγονός [ʝεγon`os], λίγο [ʎ`iγo], γυναίκα [ʝin`εka], προσεκτικά [prosεktik`a], κλείνω [kʎ`ino]. Thus, AFAICS, there is not a single reason why TeX should be pronounced with [ç]. Can someone who is both native Greek and a trained phonetician confirm that τεχνη is pronounced [tεxɲi]? --EJ 15:34, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Surely the question is not how it might be pronounced in Modern Greek (Ancient Greek would in any case have been different), but how it's pronounced in English, on which Knuth is surely something of an authority. By the way I've converted the spelling guide to IPA, which is the Wikipedia standard, as well as being less ugly to look at adn probably less confusing. --rossb 19:56, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I agree. The point was that even if someone disagrees with this viewpoint (such as, apparently, the anonymous first poster), it makes no sense to use an ich-laut.
BTW, I reverted the change you did in the sentence "The name is properly typeset ...", it was wrong. TeX is properly typeset either with a lowered capital "E" (preferred), or normal lowercase "e", but not with lowered lowercase "e". --EJ 13:34, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just to be clear here, are we talking about the Voiceless uvular fricative or the Voiceless velar fricative? --213.112.81.180 15:56, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Velar. The question was whether it is velar or palatal. EJ 09:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
But German ach-laut certainly can be uvular. Is that the only example in Knuth's list that can be [χ] instead of [x]? --213.112.81.40 14:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, I see. Russian [x] is definitely not velar. As for Spanish and Scottish (i.e., any of the at least 3 different languages or language varieties which could have been meant by this adjective), I don't know the languages myself, but all descriptions of their phonetics I've seen agree on [x], the uvular fricative [χ] not being even mentioned.
The discussion starts to get funny, I think it is time to use some common sense. There's no indication whatsoever that Knuth is a trained phonetician, and that he is aware of the differences between the various fricatives located near velum. In any case, the description he gives in TeXbook is not intended as an exact phonetical definition, but to give general (mostly North American) public a clue that the name is not to be pronounced [tɛk]. Inferring anything more from the description is of dubious value. --EJ 13:18, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
So I guess the conclusion is that you can use either one, and Knuth didn't make the distinction. --213.112.81.22 18:07, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
You can of course use whatever you want, as usual. It's just that the article should indicate some reasonable default pronunciation. --EJ 10:21, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

This is such a matter of controversy that some wikipedian whose native language includes the right 'ch' sound should record the correct pronunciation and put it on this page. Zaha 21:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

How about simply finding a sound file clip of Don Knuth pronouncing "TeX" in his way. After all, it's his invention, and he can pronounce it any way he pleases, arguments from linguists notwithstanding. —QuicksilverT @ 19:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Would it be at all worthwhile to include a note to the effect that it's not pronounced like the first syllable of Texas, or would that just be redundant? Hellbus (talk) 04:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I noticed on de:Diskussion:TeX that one user asked the question in a letter to Knuth himself some time ago, and got the folowing reply:

I do not get angry when people pronounce TeX in their favorite way...and in Germany many use a soft ch because the χ follows the vowel e, not the harder ch that follows the vowel a. In Russia, 'tex' is a very common word, pronounced 'tyekh'. But I believe the most proper pronunciation is heard in Greece, where you have the harsher ch of ach and Loch.

Cordially don knuth (ka NOOTH)

P.S. I admire the English Wikipedia, but am concerned that articles are a bit too easy for me to change.

So, this makes it clear that the intended target pronunciation is indeed [tεx] rather than [tεç]. — EJ (talk) 10:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ilumination of spelling

What do people think of adding a picture that illustrates the "spelling" of TeX, similar to the one at the beginning of the LaTeX article? –Matt 09:56, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I like the lion better :) Pity the thumbnailer makes it so faint... anyone know how to manipulate the original to fix that? --Lupin 10:43, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
You could simply ask the copyright holder of the image (Oneiros). It would have been nice if I'd been asked before the inclusion of the image here anyway. :-( --Oneiros 13:57, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

Vertical displacement in name spelling

Please avoid using the TeX logo when you cannot print it properly as in HTML. If you want to have the logo, upload a bitmap. – Torsten Bronger 12:18, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Lovely. But it's not a logo, it's the properly formatted form of its name (comme "iTunes", not "ITunes" or "Itunes" or something else). Reinstated. --James F. (talk) 14:34, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Vertical displacement is not part of orthography. Moreover it looks ugly in many browser configurations and inserts an enlarged line skip. All of this is unnecessary. Finally, in his book "Digital Typography" Knuth himself insists on a thorough positioning of the logo letters according to the current typeface. This is obviously not at all possible in HTML. – Torsten Bronger 08:54, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Moreover, the current form in the article is really weird: The last letter seems to have been typed as a Greek letter, but the first two haven't. Anyway, if no real reason against it is given, I'll switch back to the plain version in the article. – Torsten Bronger 23:56, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I concur with this. Indeed, in chapter 6 of "Digital Typography", Don Knuth insists on the correct typography for the name, and this is not what we get on the article by using a subscript -- so it can hardly be called "properly formatted". Interestingly, when Don writes the name in HTML, he uses "TeX", and does not play with the subscripts (see e.g. [1]). I suggest to follow Torsten Bronger's suggestion (especially given that I have indeed linked the bitmap logo as an image, but did not notice or remember this discussion until now). Opinions ? Schutz 23:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I absolutely disagree. I think the properly typeset logo looks wonderful, even in HTML. Besides, if Knuth (along with Spivak) insists on lowering the E when using TeX, why can't we do it in HTML?
If you really don't like that extra interlinear space, we can keep the plain-text version in the opening paragraph, and attach one of those "wrong name" notices. --Siva 21:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Knuth does not insist on lowering the E when using TeX; he insists on having the logo typeset correctly; the lowering of the E is only part of the story, there is also some backspacing between the letters so that they touch each other (see image at the top of the article, or type \show\TeX in a TeX session to see exactly how the logo is created), and we do not get this with HTML. Personaly, I don't care about the extra interlinear space, but I find the HTML version of the logo quite ugly. However, this is a question of taste; to me, the most important point is that Don Knuth himself does not lower the E in HTML. The "wrong name notice" idea sounds good to me. Schutz 21:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Another thing that I just noticed: the logo is really awful when it is part of a link, such as TEX. This is not so much of a problem on the TeX article itself, but can be seen on other pages that link to it. We need a consistent naming, and I think we should go for the simple TeX form. Schutz 08:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
There has not been any discussion on this, so I will keep the first occurence of the "logo" version of TeX, and transform all the others to the plain text version. Also, I will make the change in other articles that mention TeX, especially if they have one of these awful links to this article. Schutz 14:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I suggest that the specialised orthography be left out of the lead for a number of reasons:
  1. It does not scale at all with the font size being scaled as it ought to.
  2. Using the math markup for stylistic purposes unrelated to math is semantically problematic as it's not math.
  3. As someone mentioned above, orthography isn't part of spelling while capital/lowercase is considered part of spelling in English for proper names.
  4. As some other people have pointed out, it is not even a standard way of "spelling" even among authorities on TeX in prestigious TeX publications, so there is even less motive for Wikipedia to make this distinction.
  5. The Manual of Style makes no provisions for using stylistic devices in the leads of articles.
— Saxifrage ✎ 02:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
It can scale with the font if the relative positioning is done in terms of ems. This sentence contains a quick hack at representing theET  X logotype properly. This version unfortunately inserts too much space before, and renders as ETX in text-based browsers such as mobile phones, but I'm sure an experienced HTML guru could take this idea and make it work more robustly. 24.173.207.231 (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The distinction between name and logo is an appropriate one, and the matter is thus editorial first and typographical only as a by-product. There's a reason that "italic small caps" is an oxymoron. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.166.67.2 (talk • contribs) August 19, 2006
Now that we have the {{TeX}} template and that looks really unreadable on screen and the {{TeX-logo}} template that does not follow Knuth’s recommendations to the point but is simpler and readable on screen, could we replace TeX with either one? And, BTW, please let me know which version you prefer. --Yecril (talk) 20:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Example section concerns

I am not too convinced about the section TeX#TeX examples. Do we really want to write this section as a tutorial, with the "hello" code, the details of commands to type to compile the source, etc ? I prefer the way the MetaPost article does it: provide one relatively complex source code, along with the result it produces when compiled. Opinions? --Schutz 01:04, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. – Torsten Bronger 17:31, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Seconded. <disclaimer> I wrote MetaPost. 8-) </disclaimer> Maybe two similar short documents, one plain TeX, one LaTeX with the sample output from one or both of them. There are quite a few short example documents around (e.g. Lamport's sample.tex or others from a TeX distribution or off the web) that could be used for inspiration -- preferably giving a single small page (e.g. A5 paper). Not every feature of TeX/LaTeX needs to be included- just enough to demonstrate the principles and maybe the differences between plain & La. --Andrew Kepert 08:23, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have had a first go at a LaTeX version. It is A4, but 12pt. See User:AndrewKepert/TeX sample. --Andrew Kepert 10:04, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This looks good to me. We should maybe go for more complicated mathematics typing; for example, the cumulative_distribution_function of the normal distribution is something that always look good as an example: an integral sign, some greek letters, fraction, sqrt, it's all there. And/or maybe a complicated summation ? Schutz 22:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Anyone notice that in the sample image, it displays the result of a definite integral as an indefinite integral? It's a bit picky but all that needs to be done is remove the 0 and 3. -Anon

Licence

To 83.135.160.19: TeX is not in public domain, it is copyrighted by Knuth. Here is the licence notice: 

% This program is copyright (C) 1982 by D. E. Knuth; all rights are reserved. 
% Copying of this file is authorized only if (1) you are D. E. Knuth, or if
% (2) you make absolutely no changes to your copy. (The WEB system provides
% for alterations via an auxiliary file; the master file should stay intact.)
% See Appendix H of the WEB manual for hints on how to install this program.
% And see Appendix A of the TRIP manual for details about how to validate it.

% TeX is a trademark of the American Mathematical Society.
% METAFONT is a trademark of Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

--EJ 10:02, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I have just edited the licence section of the article, but given everything that Don Knuth has written on the topic, it looks like TeX in indeed in the public domain; please have a look and make any comment if you don't agree with my comments. Schutz 00:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
IANAL, but I think that if TeX were truly in public domain, there couldn't be any restriction on its distribution (not even the weak "keep unchanged or rename"), and it couldn't hold a copyright notice, as it would no longer have any legal connection with Knuth. Knuth's statements about "public domain" thus directly contradict both the copyright notice in the source code, and his own words in the fourth paragraph of "The future of TeX and Metafont". My understanding is that TeX is not in public domain de jure, but for most practical purposes, it can be used as if it were de facto public domain, and that Knuth uses the words "public domain" in this second, informal sense. It may be just a terminological confusion, keep in mind that terms like free software were not widely (if at all) used in 1982, thus "public domain" could have been the closest two-word approximation to "copyrighted, but freely usable, and almost freely distributable". Also, I suspect that Knuth simply doesn't care about the exact legal status of TeX.
I agree with you. Just a few details:
  • The "Public Domain" thing does not date from 1982, but from 1990, which is long after the copyright notice was affixed to the file.
  • The weak "keep unchanged or rename", as you write, is guaranteed by trademark rather that copyright anyway.
  • I am planning to see a talk by Don Knuth next week, but indeed I am pretty confident that he would not be interested by a question on this topic ;-)
Schutz 22:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Back to the content of the article. The current licence section is a bit too hairy, and its wording seems to suggest that there is some kind of ongoing controversy, whereas in reality the licence is a non-issue. I'd suggest to strip it down, and resolve the question of "PD or not PD" simply by avoiding the term. -- EJ 21:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, I remember hearing about this discussion outside of Wikipedia; while it is certainly not an ongoing controversy (it is an error on my side if the text implies this), it is somewhat confusing (the best proof being this discussion ;-). If we have a full section to talk about the licence, I think it is fair enough to say if you look closely, you will notice this term and that term, which are not consistent and give some details. I think it would be going too far to avoid the term PD, given that it appears in Don Knuth's writings. Schutz 22:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
OK, this sounds fair enough. I was a bit afraid that it is tricky to mention PD in the section without making it either confusing, or dangerously close to original research. Now, if you can ask Knuth personally for clarification, that would be most wonderful :) -- EJ 01:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Chances of this happening are extremely slim... I am still going to see his talk tomorrow, but there will be enough other people who will want to see or talk to him without me trying to ask legalese questions ... ;-) Schutz 01:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Babel

I've added TeX to the Wikipedia:Babel project. Feel free to put it in your babelbox! --Smjg 12:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Compatible Versions

It seems like fpTeX no longer exists. After some poking about, I found that the author has changed his project to XemTeX, rolling Xemacs and TeX into one package. But I am unsure of the status of the project, as it seems to have hopped between various hosts. --165.155.128.134 14:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Er, that was me - stupid proxies broke my login. --Skomae 14:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The name and its pronunciation(s)

I think this section should be included into the lead; it is relatively short, very introductive, and we have too many sections in the article already IMHO. Opinion ? Schutz 22:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

If too many sections is the problem, what about merging some of the sections? "The name and its pronunciations" and/or "Quality" could be combined with "History", and "Derived works" could be merged with "Compatible tools" (especially since the current division of the latter two is nonsystematic at best; e.g., why is BibTeX "derived work", but teTeX "compatible tool"?) -- EJ 01:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Entirely agree. The derived works, compatible tools and other software links at the end of the article are a bit of a mess at the moment. My next priority is the History section; if noone else looks into these sections, I will try to do it afterwards. Schutz 01:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Section has now been merged with the lead. I have not done (yet) any other merging as suggested by EJ. Schutz 23:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Done in part now. At least, the sections are better structured, even if there is still work to do. Schutz 21:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed the comparison to the Swedish sj sound. This phoneme is pronounced in an astonishing variety of different ways; formally, it has many allophones, including the unique [ɧ], which is itself realised in many ways, as well as [ʂ], [ɕ] and occasionally [χ], but rarely [x]. See Swedish language for more information. -Ahruman 11:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Origin of the name

The article says: A homage to Caltech, where Knuth received his doctorate, the name TeX is intended to be pronounced "tekh". I have read many of Knuth's writings about Tex, as well as quite a few interviews cited in reference on his Wikipedia page, but I have not managed so far to find a reference to this homage. Quite the opposite, actually: in the book Digital Typography, p. 635, Knuth admits that he pronounced the name as teks for the first month or two ! Does someone know of any source for this ? If we do not find anything, I'll remove the first page of this sentence (and merge the section into the lead, as proposed above). Schutz 00:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Done. Schutz 23:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

ConTeXt

I was thinking of removing the examples given for ConTeXt. Firstly, It looks to me like ConTeXt is not that well known; at least, it is far behind LaTeX in terms of notoriety. In addition, it looks to me like the examples given do not add much to the article, especially given the previous LaTeX example. But it may be only a bias on my side, so I prefer to check before removing anything. Of course, the mention of ConTeXt in the "Derived Works" section would stay, with the wikilink. Schutz 00:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Done. Schutz 22:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Computer Modern

Can anyone provide pointers to back up this statement?

"Metafont has not been accepted by professional type designers, and fonts produced with it like Computer Modern have been harshly criticized."

I'm aware that some complaints have been lodged against specific aspects of Computer Modern, but I personally find CM very pleasant and easy to read. What, specifically, is wrong with it from a typographical standpoint? Who (by name) has criticized it, and why?

Or, rather, is it the Metafont program itself that has been "harshly criticized"?

If I knew the answers I would supply them. Alas, I only have the questions. -- User:12.65.192.77

I agree 100% with the questions and comments of User:12.65.192.77. This is what I can add:
  • The first part of the statement, as it currently stands, is incorrect; Hermann Zapf, for one, is a professional type designer who has worked in collaboration with Don Knuth to create fonts in Metafont (see AMS Euler for an example), and thus, we can be confident that he has "accepted" the system.
  • However, Don Knuth admits that Metafont has not been used as much as he hoped it would be (similar to the fact that TeX has not been modified as much as he hoped); he indicates something about this on page 612 of Digital Typography (and, I think, at other places in the book, but I don't know the references by heart). In particular, he says that asking an artist to become enough of a mathematician to understand how to write a font with 60 parameters is too much. In that sense, we can say that Metafont has not been accepted (as in: used routinely), but this does not mean that...
  • ... The system itself has been harshly critized: I don't think it is the case; never heard that anyway. And go back to first bullet point for a counter-example of a professional type designer.
  • Computer Modern has been harshly criticized: everyone has fonts that he likes and dislikes; for CM to be considered harshly criticized, it would mean that a specially large number of people have criticized it; again, I have not seen this.
In summary, I think this sentence should be removed, except if very convincing sources are provided; what corresponds to my second bullet point above could probably be added to the Metafont article instead. Schutz 00:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Done. Schutz 22:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Free software or Freeware?

The article says that TeX "is free and is popular in academia..." It links to Free Software, but the usage of the word makes it sound like free as in no cost. Which Free does it mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.121.164.2 (talk • contribs)

Both. --maru (talk) contribs 07:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
There is an explanation in the last paragraph of the Software section. It was a separate section before, maybe it should be a bit more prominent. Schutz 07:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Spurious Reference ?

The last reference, to "Beebe, p. 14" is ridiculous. What is "Beebe"? I'll remove this as well as the sentence it supports (about dollar signs) unless there's an outcry --Storkk 14:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

That's obviously "Nelson H.F. Beebe. 25 Years of TeX and METAFONT etc" from the bottom of the references section. Nevertheless, I've replaced it with a direct reference to Knuth. The remaining problem is that the sentence is out of place: this is an article on TeX, not plain TeX. The typesetting engine knows nothing about dollars, and the reformulation "characters with category code 3 delimit mathematics because typesetting mathematics is supposedly expensive" is no more funny. -- EJ 17:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I've never seen the direct reference in the TeXbook, thanks for the ref. The joke is not that important in the article, even though I like seeing it mentioned. More important is the question of knowing if "plain TeX" stuff deserves a separate article; I don't think it does, since TeX and plain TeX are always considered together (although the difference should be clearly mentioned). And Knuth did not write a separate "plain TeX" book. Schutz 12:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I see. When I wrote that this is not an article on plain TeX, it was only meant as an empirical observation of the current state of affairs:
  • There's no plain-specific information in the article, except the examples (and the dollar joke).
  • There's a red link to plain TeX, suggesting that plain stuff is supposed to go there.
Having said that, I actually do think it would be better to have a separate plain TeX article, if/when somebody writes a nontrivial information on it, simply because this article is already rather long.
Speaking of the example, it is quite misleading. It purports to demonstrate the difference between inline and displayed math, but the equations are typeset using the builtin <math> markup, which always renders in display style (and may switch away from TeX entirely in the future). I'll try to fix it; a PNG would be the best option, but I don't know how to make one. -- EJ 17:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
You're absolutely right about the examples. I should be able to make the PNGs (I think latex2html creates small images for each equation). Schutz 18:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

teTeX, TeX Live

If I understand the teTeX home page correctly, it is going to be replaced with TeX live. Can anyone add this to the article? -- Felix Wiemann 12:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

About TeX macros

"Description of a third-party preprocessor which has nothing to do with the TeX macro language"?

TeX macro language (CORRECTED SECTION)

TeX provides an unusual macro language; the definition of a macro not only includes a list of commands but also the syntax of the call. Macros are completely integrated with a full-scale interpreted compile-time language that also guides processing.

TeX's macro level of operation is lexical, and it is implemented by the TeXpp[1], the TeX preprocessor. The preprocessor reads several files, understands and evaluates macro definitions, and later the invocations are replaced by the body of the macro.

Comparing with most widely used lexical preprocessor like Cpp, TeXpp is a kind of hibrid (of lexical and syntactic), and differs slightly, as the body of a macro gets tokenized at definition time, that is, it is not completely raw text. Except from a few very special cases, this gives the same behaviour.

The TeX macro language has been successfully used to extend TeX to, for instance, LaTeX and BibTex [2].

TeX macro language refers to the built-in macro expansion facilities of TeX. It is implemented by TeX itself, not by TeXpp. TeXpp is a (rather unknown) third-party preprocessor which uses a language of its own. This page is about TeX, a description of TeXpp is here off-topic; at best it would belong to its own article, but being an esoteric piece of software, I don't think it passes the notability criteria to warrant creation of such article, a simple external link would be more than enough.
LaTeX is indeed implemented as a package of TeX macros. On the other hand, BibTeX is not a TeX macro package (it is a stand-alone application written in Pascal, or more precisely, WEB), nor does it implement any macro language itself (it interprets a minimalistic programming language to be used in style files, which however has no macro capabilities).
Why do you keep referencing a rather unrelated thesis with only a passing mention of TeX when there are many good real references on the TeX macro language (e.g. the TeXbook, for starters) is escaping me. In any case, pasting literal excerpts from the thesis, as you did, is a copyright violation, and therefore strictly prohibited. -- EJ 14:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I checked, you correct (thanks!!)... TeXpp is exotic, and "TeX itself" implement macro expansion (and cited source is perhaps wrong or out-of-date about BibTex)... final sugestion to correct the text: -- Krauss 11 December 2006.

TeX provides (...) guides processing. -- same text

TeX's macro level of operation is lexical, but it is a built-in facility of TeX, that make use of syntax interpretation. Comparing with most widely used lexical preprocessor like Cpp, it differs slightly, as the body of a macro gets tokenized at definition time, that is, it is not completely raw text. Except from a few very special cases, this gives the same behaviour. -- new text

The TeX macro language has been successfully (...). -- same text

(add example) -- new

Sample sugestion

Need some sample on TeX#TeX_macro_language. Please, if you agreee, copy/adapt for article. Adapeted from Brabrand (1998):

TEX macros are defined by the \def construct, or similar variants, followed by the name of the macro preceeded by a backslash. Hereafter follows a sequence of tokens and arguments. The arguments are identified by ciphers preceeded by the token "#", bounding the number of arguments by nine. Finally comes the body of the macro, which is taken to be whatever is written between two balancing brackets. Of course, the body can also contain corresponding argument usages, the treating of which is deferred to invocation-time, as with the Cpp macros, yielding dynamic macro scope. 

\def \vector #1[#2..#3]{
$({#1}_{#2},\ldots,{#1}_{#3})$
}
\vector x'[0..n-1] ! $({x'}_{0},nldots,{x'}_{n-1})$

This TeXmacro example (\vector) shows a definition of a macro called vector plus an invocation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Krauss (talk • contribs) 16:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

References about TeX usage

You may have noticed that I added a new section to the article about the use of TeX. I think this is an important part of the article: we don't want to talk only about the technical details, but also say who is using the system and for what, and it'd be nice if others have good references to add here.

Which brings me to a question about the lead, where it is written: "[TeX] is popular in academia, especially in the mathematics, physics, computer science, political science, and engineering communities". Mathematics, physics, CS and engineering are pretty much covered by the references I have added in the new section (as well as "law", which is cited by Knuth). Does anyone have any reference about political science or should I remove this claim ? One editor or even one book in the field would be good enough. Schutz 12:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Try Cambridge University Press. They always (I think) state which typesetter they use, and I have seen many books from CUP whose copyright pages (or whatever they're called) have on them: "System: LaTeX 2e". Even on books as diverse as Post-Soviet Russian History and Anthropology. 202.89.155.120 (talk) 12:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Not very accurate example

I think the example about "Mathematical text typeset using TeX and the AMS Euler font." in "Mathematical spacing" is not mathematically correct.

You're clearly right. I would suggest to try to contact the person who made this image, Commons:User:Dubaj. Unfortunately, he has not made any contribution on commons since last August, so there is a good chance that he will be hard to contact. Schutz 20:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Well,

Don't you think the article should mention that wikipedia itself uses tex as the language of math formulas? 217.132.32.87 23:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

History Section: Monotype

Monotype previously linked to Monotyping. It now goes to Monotype Corporation. The history section refers to a typesetting process from the 19th century whereas the Monotyping article refers to a printing method invented in the 18th century (for making unique prints). Miskimo 11:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Broken link

The link to the "Plain TeX Quick Reference (PDF)" gives a 404. I found a file with the same name on Wikipedia under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tex-refcard-letter.pdf (of the Reference card article). I don't know if it's the same file and if I should change the link to point to that file. I'll leave it up to someone else to fix it, I guess. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.180.33.91 (talk) 09:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

A way around the vertical spacing issue!

TEX. Let me try this.--Śiva 16:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It does not really solve any of the problems and concerns discussed earlier with imitations of the logo, does it ? Schutz 23:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

On Portal:Free software, TeX is currently the selected article

(2007-05-03) Just to let you know. The purpose of selecting an article is both to point readers to the article and to highlight it to potential contributors. It will remain on the portal for a week or so. The previous selected article was rsync. Gronky 14:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The selected article box has been updated again, TeX has been superceded by Free Java implementations. Gronky 23:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Lemma

Shouldn't this article have the lemma ΤΕΧ (not TEX) rather than TeX? 80.136.220.234 21:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No. TEX is (was) something different, as detailed in the TeXbook.--Oneiros 17:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Removing citation requests?

Two {{fact}} tags have been removed from this article. I recommend re-adding them. These tags are not a criticism or a blemish. The article will be better when good citations are eventually found. Not only do citations act as evidence, they also act as a reference for someone who wants to investigate the situation and replace the current wording with something more precise. Gronky 22:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The unsourced statements should just be removed. They're weaselly peacock statements. Chris Cunningham 14:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree; it seems important to me to be able to point to fields where TeX is widely used, such as mathematics. If TeX is really widely used in other fields, it would be quite important to mention this fact too, showing that it is not just a specialised tool for mathematics typesetting. Examples should be easy to find, if they exist — in the meantime, I have readded the {{fact}} tags. Schutz 12:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
A lot of things are important, but without sources there's no way for readers to verify what they're being present with. Jimmy Wales has said in the past that unsourced statements should be removed rather than questioned. Chris Cunningham 13:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm happy to remove them after a while (and, actually, those which have been here since February could indeed be removed — I would leave the one for linguistic for some time, though), but I would much prefer if someone who knows the field could find relevant sources. Schutz 14:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
FYI, Jimbo has also said that "Jimbo said so" doesn't carry any weight in a disagreement on Wikipedia. The Parsnip! 14:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Heh. Got a ref? :) Chris Cunningham 11:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
No, I do not, mainly because I don't feel like spending hours parsing through endless edit logs. But he has said in the past that he doesn't like it when people invoke the "Jimbo says" thing. We should invoke policy, not Jimbo. The Parsnip! 15:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The smiley there was intended to indicate jest (you know, the whole "don't believe anything without a reference" thing). But yeah, I know; I've got my own reasons for being an exclusionist, it's not just because Jimbo sez. Chris Cunningham 15:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The unsourced statements could be moved here to the Talk page until citations are found. Those interested could also chase down the editor who added the statements, especially if the have an external email address. Lentower 18:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Example is not how-to

It is a false assert that the `example of TeX' section is a how-to. It just shows what TeX a source file should contain, which is informative. The section is written pretending it is a how-to to make things more lively. This is a style matter, not a content matter. 23:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Michaël

Agree that this is a matter of style rather than whether that material makes sense here, as the examples are brief and of the "here's what TeX looks like and what it does" sort, rather than an attempt to rewrite the TeXbook or anything. I've taken a shot at fixing the style. There's still a bit of duplication (the paragraph mentioning DVI and PDFTeX is moderately similar in both the section "The typesetting system" and the section I decided to call "How TeX is run"), but I'm not sure whether this needs to be eliminated and if so, which place makes more sense. Kingdon (talk) 02:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Stallman

Stallman's opinion on the license isn't relevant to the article and furthermore it doesn't even say in the article what it is he thinks. 24.58.154.67 (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I've deleted it. RossPatterson (talk) 03:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Considered By Most What?

"considered by most"

The reference provided is a description of how physics and mathematics academics can go about using TeX. That's great and well, but it certainly doesn't provide evidence that "most" of any population accepts the format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.85.197.200 (talk) 01:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It is really funny that you cannot say that "most" people in math, physics, or computer science use TeX (what is, as far as math and CS are concerned, quite true), but you can say that "some users" complain about how TeX sucks by giving a single reference to a single page with the opinion of a single user (well, technically "some users" also means 1, is that it?). The reference is further a bit strange, as the rant is more about LaTeX than TeX. Is this one guy a sample of the whole group of users? I think not. 192.16.197.194 (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Please show us at least five scientific journals in physics and mathematics that do not accept contributions in TeX.--Oneiros (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

update

Does anyone know where to get the 3.1415926 revision of TeX? In theory it was released a week ago, but it does not seem to be available for download on the master CTAN archive. -- EJ (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, it was uploaded yesterday. The location apparently changed to [2]. -- EJ (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Quadratic formula

Wouldn't it be more correct to say that the quadratic formula is rather than just ? Stephen Shaw (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of TeX

I decided to remove the sentence from the introduction criticizing TeX. I don't think TeX is above criticism, but the reference given was not solid: someones personal opinion, and not even a very coherent personal opinion at that (how on earth is "\degr" a difficult macro for the symbol for degrees? Maybe if you are an astronomer it is (no it isn't, but...), anyway one can redefine "\deg" to be whatever one wants, right?). So if I decide to write a webpage praising TeX I could add a link to it saying how "some users" (yes, some users = at least one user) love it? I think not. 82.139.116.129 (talk) 10:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, this article could probably use a criticism section. 12.45.255.66 (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

TeX and Pascal

I have corrected a few minor points with reference to Pascal, and I'll expand some detail for those interested.

TeX is written in DEC PDP-10 Pascal. I haven't seen this quoted anywhere, it was determined by comparing the source against net documents covering various compilers. See:

http://pdp-10.trailing-edge.com/decuslib10-07/01/43,50433/pascal.doc.html

It uses several PDP-10 Pascal extensions, including "others:" clause on cases, the break() and breakin() procedures, extended versions of reset() and rewrite(), the close() procedure, access to the DEC TTY: pseudodevice by name, a DEC specific understanding of character file eof and eoln sequencing, and equivalence of text to packed file of character.

Please see:

http://www.standardpascal.org/standards.html

For more details on what exactly constitutes Pascal across any given time period.

Knuth did a good job of isolating such dependencies for the most part, the I/O handling is localized to a few short routines. However, it is unhelpful to stick to the odd, and untrue zealotry that TeX is written in some kind of ideal Pascal. I had to do a fair amount of research to get TeX to compile on a standard compiler because asking about the source language of TeX starts religious fights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.201.77 (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Instead of comparing the source against net documents and whatnot, you can as well read Knuth's own account:
Different Pascals have slightly different conventions, and the present program expresses TeX in terms of the Pascal that was available to the author in 1982. Constructions that apply to this particular compiler, which we shall call Pascal-H, should help the reader see how to make an appropriate interface for other systems if necessary. (Pascal-H is Charles Hedrick's modification of a compiler for the DECsystem-10 that was originally developed at the University of Hamburg; cf. SOFTWARE—Practice & Experience 6 (1976), 29–42. The TeX program below is intended to be adaptable, without extensive changes, to most other versions of Pascal, so it does not fully use the admirable features of Pascal-H. Indeed, a conscious effort has been made here to avoid using several idiosyncratic features of standard Pascal itself, so that most of the code can be translated mechanically into other high-level languages. For example, the `with' and `new' features are not used, nor are pointer types, set types, or enumerated scalar types; there are no `var' parameters, except in the case of files; there are no tag fields on variant records; there are no assignments real:=integer; no procedures are declared local to other procedures.) tex.web, lines 192–211


So, TeX is written in a restricted subset of a modified DEC PDP-10 (=DECsystem-10) Pascal. — Emil J. (formerly EJ) 10:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I saw the reference. Pascal-h is difficult or impossible to find online references for (if you know of one, I'd like to see it). In any case, the only non-standard references (to Pascal) I found in the 3.1415926 TeX code were identical to the PDP-10 Pascal language (whose manual I posted a link for above). So Pascal-h is historically interesting, but apparently immaterial to the non-standard constructs in the TeX source code itself. Knuth may not have been aware (or cared) what the differences were between Pascal-h and DEC PDP-10 Pascal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.201.77 (talk) 02:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason for that may be because search engines interpret pascal-h, even in quotes, as pascal?h, where ? is . or -, and because it's obscure, sites with phrases like pascal.h and pascal h. SomeName are more popular. Searching for a less ambiguous term would find better information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Family Guy Guy (talk • contribs) 04:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Naming issue

A recent move to eliminate the oBnoXiOuS cApItaliSaTiON that Tex is stuck with was just reverted on the grounds that WP:COMMONNAME overrules MOS:TM. I don't agree with this change: Donald Knuth shouldn't get a bye here where random companies don't, even if he is my homeboy. How commonly the oBnoXiOuS cApItaliSaTiON is used isn't the point. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You are misreading WP:TM. Your random companies and trademarks like eBay and iPod get the same treatment as TeX. And how commonly a capitalization is used most definitely *is* the point, WP:UCN is the basic policy for naming things, WP:TM merely states that we should not use all caps trademarks like "TIME" when the normal English usage is "Time". The normal English usage with respect to TeX is always TeX. — Emil J. (formerly EJ) 10:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
No, it is Emil who is misreading the policy (or possibly didn't read it very closely, as both MOS:TM and the lengthy discussion on the talk page explain why eBay and iPod are allowed - the initial letters are pronounced separately and are partial acronyms). The "standard capitalization" referred to in WP:NC and elsewhere is that of the English language, not what a software publisher chooses. Lots of trademarks use silly and meretricious casing as a way of making product names "stand out", but Wikipedia does not indulge this conceit. (FWIW, I note Emil also reverted my change of "METAFONT" to "Metafont".) "TeX" and its derivatives (LaTeX, etc.) are among the worst offenders, and should be treated no differently. ProhibitOnions (T) 14:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
What a software publisher chooses is irrelevant. TeX is also the spelling of choice of most users of English writing about the subject, which is what standard English capitalization means. Thus TeX is the preferred spelling according to both MOS:TM and WP:UCN.
As for METAFONT, I reverted your edit as whole because I didn't feel like separating one mass change from another, but I consider its situation to be quite different from TeX and LaTeX, as Metafont is IME an often used spelling. I thus agree that it would be better to write Metafont in this article (in agreement with the Metafont article itself). — Emil J. (formerly EJ) 10:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
WP:TW specifies: "Trademarks in CamelCase are a judgement call. CamelCase may be used where it reflects general usage and makes the trademark more readable". The general usage is "TeX", few people writes "Tex", and means the subject. →AzaToth 14:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
CamelCase is not the same as oBnoXiOuS cApItaliSaTiON (EmilJ also reverted moves of this type for sister articles METAFONT and LaTeX). The project as a whole has decided not to respect idiosyncratic typographical choices in trademarks, not just for technical reasons but for readability as well (lord knows what a screen reader would do with it), and I don't see that this is so different from not using the (very nice) {{TeX}} template everywhere. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
A screen reader would most probably mess up any kind of spelling of TeX producing something like IPA: [tɛks] or [tiːiːɛks], unless it has the idiosyncratic [tɛx] pronunciation in its exception dictionary, which is more likely to happen for the standard "TeX" spelling than for any other. This is even more obvious for "LaTeX", as "Latex" is a common English word with a different pronunciation than LaTeX.
BTW, get your facts straight. I didn't revert any move of the Metafont article, I didn't even touch that article so far. — Emil J. (formerly EJ) 10:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW, it is unclear why exactly MOS:TM applies in this case. Although many sources say that TeX is a trademark of the AMS, this article itself denies the claim, and I have seen no sources saying that LaTeX is a trademark. This is not a question of obnoxious or attention-grabbing moves by some company; the actual names of the software are themselves capitalized in that way. Consider BASIC, troff, grep, etc.
The policy is to follow the common usage, and you can look at what prominent publications say (in this case, finding no mention of (La)TeX in the New York Times or the Washington Post, one is forced to look at Linux Journal and the like, which do follow the official capitalization. :-) shreevatsa (talk) 15:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't. The policy is to use standard English capitalization. This isn't a fansite, and Wikipedia does not have to ape a Linux magazine's style guide -- it has its own. And it is irrelevant whether this product name is a registered trademark or not. BASIC is an acronym, and is dealt with as such (it's in WP:NC). As for the others, they should probably be written as common nouns. ProhibitOnions (T) 16:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Neither TeX nor LaTeX nor METAFONT are trademarks. TeX was tried but rejected, METAFONT is elapsed.--Oneiros (talk) 22:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Again, whether these terms are registered trademarks or not is irrelevant to Wikipedia. However you choose to describe these terms (trademark, brand, unregistered trademark, product name, etc.), they should be written using standard English capitalization, per WP:MOS. ProhibitOnions (T) 07:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Standard English capitalization is, by definition, the capitalization used for the word in question by the majority of English texts. Therefore, the standard English capitalization of TeX is TeX, not Tex. — Emil J. (formerly EJ) 10:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Interesting bit of original research there. However, if you look at WP:NC, it's clear:
Use standard English for titles even if trademarks encourage otherwise
Convention: Follow standard English text formatting for article names that are trademarks. Items in full or partial uppercase (such as Invader ZIM) should have standard capitalization (Invader Zim).
Exceptions include article titles with the first letter lowercase and the second letter uppercase, such as iPod and eBay
Rationale and specifics: See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks).
And please, no wikilawyering about registered/unregistered trademarks. ProhibitOnions (T) 11:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh yes, do see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) for rationale and specifics: "When deciding how to format a trademark, editors should choose among styles already in use (not invent new ones) and choose the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner." The only style already in general use is TeX (or even the full logo). It would be absurd for Wikipedia to invent an idiosyncratic naming which no one else is following. Wikipedia is not the place to push your ideas of what should be the spelling of TeX. If you are unhappy with the consensus of the users of the word, you have to lauch a campaign outside WP to persuade the world to use your spelling, and then WP may follow suit. You are the only one doing original research here, you can check in the standard English article that my definition of standard by usage is the only correct one for the English language, as there is no standards body issuing an official rule book. — Emil J. (formerly EJ) 10:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official" ... choose the style that most closely resembles standard English. ProhibitOnions (T) 13:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes yes, I agree with you (now) that what the trademark owner chooses should not be our guideline, but User:EmilJ's point is that the "standard English text formatting and capitalization" of TeX is TeX, because that is what all standard sources (independent of the "trademark owner") calls it. As he says, "standard English" is defined by usage, and the standard usage name of TeX is TeX. You would be inventing something new and strange if you called it "Tex". shreevatsa (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
This guideline seeks to select the formatting that best serves the readers; our responsibility is to them, not to trademark owners. Maybe we should continue on WT:MOSTM?--Oneiros (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Good idea. Go ahead. ProhibitOnions (T) 14:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Pronouncing and writing TeX

The following sentence is not exact:

The name TeX is intended by its developer to be pronounced /ˈtɛx/, with the final consonant of loch or Bach.

Loch comes from the Gaelic and, normally, its ch does not have the same pronunciation as the ch in Bach, but sounds more like the letter j in Spanish. Another example should be used (Ache, archetype, and so on). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nounec (talk • contribs) 10:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:TeX/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment. In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of September 14, 2008, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

  • The Hyphenation and justification section has a clean-up tag.
  • Section names should not repeat the article name, as in "Use of TeX".
  • Pronouncing and writing "TeX" section ought to be integrated into the History section. Probably ought to be "pronunciation" anyway.
  • The Community section is too small to stand alone.
  • Many sections/subsections are entirely uncited. For instance: METAFONT, Novel aspects, and Macro Language.
  • There are several external links in the body of the article, for instance in the Packages and Editors sections. External links should only appear in an External links section.
  • Dates are not handled consistently, sometimes given in international format (30 March 1977) and sometimes in US format (May 13, 1977).
  • Italics are used inconsistently and incorrectly throughout the article. For instance: “all rights are reserved. Copying of this file is authorized only if (...) you make absolutely no changes to your copy” Quotations should not be in italics.

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

"The widely-used MIME Type for TeX"

1,080,000 results for Google Search "text/x-tex"

versus

142,000 results for Google Search "application/x-tex"

--Keith111 (talk) 00:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that text/x-tex makes much more sense given the usual MIME naming conventions, there is something going wrong with your Google search: by clicking on the two links above I get 173,000 hits for "text/x-tex", and 1,210,000 for "application/x-tex". — Emil J. 12:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Weird, I am still getting about the same numbers as before, in both Firefox and IE (which I rarely use): 1,070,000 for the first link and 140,000 for the second link. Refresh with Ctrl+F5 and modification of "Safe Search" settings did not produce a significant change. I am not logged in to Google, so my search results should not be personalized. --Keith111 (talk) 09:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I also get the same results with a second computer (connected to the same router as the first). --Keith111 (talk) 09:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Interesting. I get 1,050,000 and 152,000 results respectively. Perhaps it's one of Google's geographical "features"? Shreevatsa (talk) 16:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MizaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 60 days.--Oneiros (talk) 01:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it a "formula" ?

In the given TeX example, the output produced by the quantity between the dollar signs -- which is well known as the roots of a quadratic equation -- is called a "formula". The question is, whether this is a correct use of the word "formula" in the context of mathematics. In the Wikipedia article of the same name, I find the following statement:

Expressions are distinct from formulas in that they cannot contain an equals sign; whereas formulas are comparable to sentences, expressions are more like phrases.

And so the crux is, whether the usage is correct -- I would tend to vote for the word "expression" here. After all, TeX has very much to do with maths! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.253.203 (talk) 08:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

LULZ

The name TeX is intended by its developer to be pronounced /ˈtɛx/, with the final consonant of loch or Bach

Do you guys actually know how Bach is pronounced in German? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.85.214.129 (talk) 17:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

IPA: [ˈbaχ] or [ˈbax], depending on the dialect. Also, depending on the dialect, the initial consonant may be voiceless lenis [b̥], and I guess there may be other variations, but the final phone is generally pronounced as a voiceless uvular or velar fricative. How do you think it is pronounced?—Emil J. 10:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
That problem was also solved in the 2010 TeX replacement. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
What are you talking about? And how does this help improving the article?--Oneiros (talk) 11:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Watch the talk and you'll understand. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

No comparison to other word processors.

No part of the article is dedicated to comparing and contrasting it to other word processors. I understand that it uses a markup language and requires a separate editor program for WYSIWYG editing, but no direct comparisons as far as feature set were made, other than noting its excellent support for mathematical equations. 67.142.130.18 (talk) 02:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Broken Link

The link to "Plain TeX Quick Reference (PDF)" is broken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.198.129.70 (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Needs a Tex disambiguation link as there are other Tex's out there

Look at the Text Executive Programming Language Wikipedia article, it has a Tex disambiguation reference page pointer.

I think this article needs one too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tex_%28disambiguation%29

from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Text_Executive_Programming_Language — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.6.208.10 (talk) 15:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

IPA pronounciation

 Done
The first line says: TeX (pronounced /ˈtɛx/, as in Greek, often /ˈtɛk/ in English
Why should there be two pronounciations, when they are writen alike in IPA: /ˈtɛx/? -DePiep (talk) 07:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I see ... x or k. Almost just in time ;-) -DePiep (talk) 07:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

What does "Greek" or "English" pronunciation mean? If anything, it would make people unfamiliar with IPA think it rhymes with "Greek". And reading X (ks) as Χ (kh) is "Greek", not the other way round. --MarkSteward (talk) 12:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a link to make clear that Greek refers to the Greek language. I don't quite understand what your second problem is, (late Koine, Byzantine, and Modern) Greek chi is pronounced as IPA [x], just like the note says. — Emil J. 13:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm having a hard time understanding the phrase "/ˈtɛx/ tekh as in Greek" as well. On careful parsing I see it's likely the author does not mean `such a sound as one finds in the word "Greek"' because there are no quotes around the word "Greek" and none of "TeX" actually sounds like the word "Greek". However, it is still unclear what the sentence is saying about the relationship between /ˈtɛx/ tekh and Greek. I think maybe it's trying to say something like "the word is pronounced with the end consonant sounding like /x/ (kh), a sound such as may be found in Modern Greek" or "the word is pronounced as you might expect a word spelled this way to be pronounced if it were a Greek word (which it isn't actually); the word is pronounced as it would be if in Greek". I think the former is more likely. Could we be clearer about what it is that is pronounced as in Modern Greek? Or maybe just leave off "as in Greek" because it probably won't be illuminating to English speakers? —Raymond Keller (talk) 10:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on TeX. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on TeX. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ TeXpp -- TeX Preprocessor Manual
  2. ^ "Synthesizing Safety Controllers for Interactive Web Services", C. Brabrand (1998). Master's thesis at University of Aarhus, Denmark. About TeX, see section 2.2.1.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:TeX/Archive_1&oldid=1183555135"