[fooofw]

It's kind of fun to compare this formulation with the seemingly contradictory official arXiv argument for submitting the TeX source [1]:

> 1. TeX has many advantages that make it ideal as a format for the archives: It is plain text, it is compact, it is freely available for all platforms, it produces extremely high-quality output, and it retains contextual information.

> 2. It is thus more likely to be a good source from which to generate newer formats, e.g., HTML, MathML, various ePub formats, etc. [...]

Not that I disagree with the effort and it surely is a unique challenge to, at scale, convert the Turing complete macro language TeX to something other than PDF. And, at the same time, the task would be monumentally more difficult if only the generated PDFs were available. So both are right at the same time.

[1] https://info.arxiv.org/help/faq/whytex.html#contextual

[tosti]

Working with both at the same time makes their strengths and pitfalls shine. It's like that dual-boot computer where you're constantly in the wrong OS.

HTML has better separation of concerns than latex. Latex does typesetting a lot better than html. HTML layout can differ wildly in the same document. Latex documents are easier to layout in the first place.

...etc...