On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 at 11:55, 'Zam' via asciidoc <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello Lex, > > Thank you, once more, for your quick response. > > I'm a usual LaTeX user and have just now started using AsciiDoc since, I'm > told, its quality is not very far removed from that of Tex, regarding at > least the regular output of the standard LaTeX document-classes, and its > syntax is considerably simpler and much more straightforward.
The advantage of using the AsciiDoc to docbook to latex to pdf toolchain is that documents will look like Latex documents, because the rendering stage _is_ Latex, but the downside of that toolchain is that it is a toolchain, so there are lots of steps. At one stage there was a backend for legacy AsciiDoc Python that generated Latex directly, but it was one person's work, and when they retired it became unmaintained AFAIK. So the dblatex step is needed, but I'm not sure how well maintained dblatex is either [I reverse that, dblatex-py3 does seem to be currently maintained so that would be the one to use]. There is also the xsltproc/FOP toolchain but it gives a very different look. > > I have, in fact, installed asccidoctor-pdf (a no-fuss, one-step, installation > process) and have been using it all along to try out AsciiDoc. The advantage of a heavily supported implementation. > I have, nevertheless, insisted on figuring out the installation process of > the Legacy AscciDoc Python implementation since, it seems to me, there might > be something to the added complexity of the DocBook tool chain that might > have got lost in Asciidoctor's simplicity. (I figured it won't hurt to have > both processors installed---and learn their respective syntax---in order to > find out for myself if this is true.) That's all. IIUC (havn't tried it myself) asciidoctor can generate docbook so it can be fed to dblatex and latex in the same way. Or the xslproc/fop chain can be used. > > Regarding my asciidoc.py installation, I think what's mixed up is my own > note-taking regarding the output I've got while trying out different > releases. (I have tried out both, i.e., 9.0.5 and 9.1.0, starting with the > latest, and have had the same problem in each case.) My mistake. > > All things considered, maybe the best way of finding out if there is, in > fact, "something to the added complexity of the DocBook tool chain that might > have got lost in Asciidoctor's simplicity" is asking the community. There are limits of Asciidoctor-PDF which are set out in its documentation, but fundamentally it doesn't try to look like Latex, which has decades (literally) of layout experience encapsulated in it. It really depends on what you want the output to look like. Cheers Lex > > Cheers, > > Zam > ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "asciidoc" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/asciidoc/CAKhWKDM_KMHrKiB2mQ%2B_NjX1VffASeFoVtDsA5ks0m5sqkETyA%40mail.gmail.com.
