Blogs Post CCCC 2004

I wanted to point to a few resources for blogging among teachers and scholars in literature, composition and rhetoric that have emerged since the CCCCs conference. First, a list of blogs by teachers and scholars in composition, literature, and rhetoric hosted by Second, a listserve growing out of the CCCC SIG for “comp/rhet/lit folk devoted to exploring the personal and professional applications of weblogs and wikis in teaching, writing, and research.”

More on LaTeX

Part 2 of Kevin O’Malley’s Mac DevCenter article “LaTeX: It’s Not Just for Academia” is here. And thanks to the thoughtful comments by John McChesney-Young on the other blog, I know about three other helpful LaTeX resources.

First, there’s this resource page about TeX on Mac OS X and then there’s this excellent introduction to
LaTeX and Mac OS X by Stephan Hochhaus. Finally, there’s the very helpful web site for the
TeX on Mac OS X Mailing List.

LaTex at MacDev

From O’Reilly’s MacDev: LaTeX: It’s Not Just for Academia, Part 1 by Kevin O’Malley

LaTeX is not a word processor. It’s a document preparation system that produces typeset-quality output. LaTeX has as much, if not more, utility as commercial word processors. It’s rock solid, has a long history of use, a large user base, and best of all, it’s free. Kevin O’Malley covers the versions of LaTeX available for Mac OS X.

I’m more than a little frustrated with following my school’s dissertation format in MicrosoftWord, but what’s even more frustrating is finding a word processor that supports the formatting specifications for a dissertation, including footnotes, and Unicode. In particular, support for the “runic” characters of Middle English, like the yogh. I’m going to be looking at LaTeX, in part because of the bibliographic support for BibDesk.


The thing that I’ve not seen any one, on either side of the .RSS/Echo issue mention is that whatever flaws .RSS may (or may not) have, it’s understandable by ordinary mortals, even Medievalists. Looking at the specs, especially the sample files, and a few people’s feeds, was enough for me to kind of figure out how it worked, and even create a feed by hand. SOAP as far as I’m concerned, is not humanly parseable. Looking at a SOAP file doesn’t really tell me anything.