[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [sc-dev] [Comments?]XML doc? Fwd: html doc
Am 13. Februar 2004, 02:21 Uhr (-0800) schrieb James McCartney:
> On Feb 13, 2004, at 2:04 AM, James McCartney wrote:
> >Or switch to the HTML source and edit that - not very interactive -
> >and if the text is syntax colored there will be so many tags embedded
> >in it that it will be nearly impossible to edit. You'd need a tool to
> >generate the html from a third representation.
I agree. Since there are translators from docbook/xml to pdf and html
why not use them and add a translator to get whatever is needed for
appropriate viewing in SC? BTW: I also think that syntax coloring of
code examples should be done on the fly as Stefan suggests. The other
xml tags aren't that bad and could get hidden with a keystroke for
easier editing in an appropriate editor (like emacs).
I didn't see my mail from Monday in the list, so I'm attaching it
below. My apologies for double postings.
-------------- Begin forwarded mail -----------------
Am 09. Februar 2004, 19:03 Uhr (-0500) schrieb Scott Wilson:
> >> what about latex? It is the standard format for scientific text
> >> production
> >> and there is plenty of tools for it, also WYSIWYGs.
> I'm not sure this is the way to go though. Latex is cool, but probably
Latex is inappropriate as it uses layout markup rather than structural
markup unless it gets used in an unconventional way. XML was partly
invented to circumvent the shortcomings of TeX/LaTeX. Using XML (or
some custom SC), you can generate LaTeX from it (That's currently the
normal way to get pdf output from xml: xml->latex->dvi->ps->pdf).
------------ End forwarded mail ---------------------