+1 for lyx/latex. With lyx the learning curve is not high for general submission. final styling and editing might take a bit more know-how, but with the way everything is structured that should not be a major time consumer. Also, easy conversion to any number of other formats. Indexing/ToC is big. Any sizable book editor needs something along those lines.
On Jan 12, 11:23 am, Bryan Larsen <[email protected]> wrote: > > I've not tried this, but it would be even better to have a mechanism to > > directly include a chunk of code from another file, ie specify "give me > > lines 24-40 from some/path/foo.rb, starts with 'class Something'" - the > > last bit in the same spirit that diff/patch use context to warn when > > things don't match up. That would be the ultimate "make the examples > > match the book" technique. > > agility uses git to do this. > > > > >> Another advantage is that you don't need to learn another editor -- > >> you need an editor with a good markdown mode. Luckily, the editor > >> you currently use for programming will probably work. Both emacs and > >> TextMate have good markdown modes, as will any popular ruby > >> programmer's editor. > > > I can't think of any reason that the same editors couldn't be used to > > handle LaTeX - TextMate's got a sizable mode for it, and I remember > > editing TeX code in emacs on a vt220... Certainly, Markdown is easier > > for inexperienced users, but I doubt anybody who's afraid of structured > > markup is hanging around here... :) > > The difference is that markdown looks reasonable in a text editor -- > LaTeX looks strange, which is why LyX was created. > > > > > The biggest issue I could see in transcoding between the two is getting > > the right figure / chapter markings in. Automatic figure numbering, > > tables of contents and back/forward refs are some of the major wins for > > TeX - no more stray references to "Figure XX" floating around. > > This is partially mitigated by writing the chapters in markdown and > putting the book together in LaTeX. We'd have to have a consistent > strategy for figures, tables and indices, but it would be doable, since > LaTeX would do the hard stuff. > > > > > My other peeve with Markdown is the silly "internal emphasis" rule, > > which tends to munge Ruby variable names. We've run into it on the > > cookbook, and Github got so tired of tripping over it that they dropped > > it in "GitHub-flavored Markdown". Maybe there's a workaround for that? > > I think so. The cookbook should definitely steal the underscore rule > from GFM. There's too much that would be broken with their new-line > rule, though. > > cheers, > Bryan
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Hobo Users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hobousers?hl=en.
