I have been thinking about using rst3, but still I am not sure if I really
need it. In fact, I probably don't need a markup language at all, because
all of my context are in plaintext (apart from italics). Using a markup
language would probably be too much, and will introduce unnecessary
complexity.
I badly need your advice on this matter, for defining some unresolved
issues.
First of all, the data contents of my project work is stored in plaintext.
The only exception is the use of italics. As a workaround, I will probably
use the HTML tags for italics in the text, which will be interpreted only
in the last stage of the workflow, when the output (to be printed) is being
prepared.
So I am planning to write everything is plaintext, storing all the data in
Leo nodes and subnodes, and then have Leo scripts generate the final
output, which most probably will be in HTML code. Yes, I know LaTeX would
be much better, considering that the required output will be printed on
paper, but using HTML is (1) simpler (2) may one day be usable online (even
if this is not its primary purpose).
Now I need your advice about the following:
assuming that I store all my plaintext data (ignoring the italics for a
moment) in Leo nodes, in a well-ordered hierarchical manner, how difficult
would it be to create a customized Leo script that takes that data and fits
it into an HTML template?
I have already sketched the standard HTML template which will be used for
my project. All textual segments will use this template.
Attached to this post is the HTML template. I have used the colors only for
illustrative purposes, but they will not be present in the final output.
The reference number in the yellow cell will be the name of the Leo node,
and will serve as the 'key' of the database, as it were. The content of
this node is the text present in the green cell. Then there are footnotes
and side notes, as illustrated in the HTML table; their content will be
saved in Leo subnodes named fn1, fn2, fn3..., sn1, sn2, sn3...
This is all quite straighforward. The only complicated part, it seems to
me, would be to have a Leo script take those data and automatically create
the HTML output. I am not much experienced with Python, so I am a bit
uneasy. But maybe this is not all that difficult, I guess.
What do you think?
Please, give me your feedback.
Thanks,
Jerry
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"leo-editor" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
| #1 |
This green section (or 'cell') of the HTML table contains the text segment1 that has to be annotated.
Each word of the text may be linked to a footnote and/or a side note. Footnotes are numbered2 (1, 2, 3...).
Side notes, which typically consist of only a few words, may be indicated by letters of the alphabet. They are usually literal translations of foreign words appearing in the main text.
At this stage, I am still undecided whether or not to use letters as indicators for side notes.
For instance, if the foreign word maisona appears in the main text, I can use a letter of the alphabet as an indicator to its explanatory side note (as I just did). Alternatively, I could simply use an asterisk after the word. In the latter case, though, I would have to repeat the foreign word in the side note. So, I would have, say, chat*. Each approach has its pros and cons.
Using an asterisk (for all words, indistictly) is probably simpler, because it does not require any numbering (but it takes up more space in the side note, as I have to repeat the foreign word). Or I may even leave out the asterisk altogether (doing without an indicator), as the italic format in itself may be enough as an indicator.
|
| a. | house (in French) |
| chat: | cat (in French) |
|
1. The text is in the plaintext format; the only exception are words in italic.
2. This is the second footnote.
|
