Re: [sc-dev] [Comments?]XML doc? Fwd: html doc

[Orm Finnendahl <finnendahl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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.

--
Orm

-------------- 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
> overkill.
>
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).

 --
 Orm
------------ End forwarded mail ---------------------