On 23-Oct-98 Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>>>>>> "Alejandro" == Alejandro Aguilar Sierra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>>> writes:
>
>>> The problem dictates that we need to have a nested format. It's as
>>> simple as that.
>
> Alejandro> What do you mean with nested format? Given that our output
> Alejandro> is LaTeX and docbook, it's obvious they can hold a nested
> Alejandro> format, isn't it?
>
> If we plan to switch to a tree format in terms of sections structure,
> we should have latex like
>
> \begin{section}
>
> \begin{subsection}
>
> \end{subsection}
>
> \end{section}
Do you know any further exceptions besides the sections?
With sections you could output something like this:
\section{First}
....
%\end_section{first}
That's not a problem. Even for indentation that would be very easy to read.
> This is not the case, so that LaTeX cannot hold the nested format we
> need. DocBook could, maybe.
>
> But then, it seems much better to me to use a structure which is
> tailored to contain just what we need.
I have tought about that lately and how not to reinvent the wheel over and
over again.
My proposal sgml related, as you would expect ;)
This is not only relevant to the file format but also to the layout scheme
used. (Now after writing this I don't see how this is related with the
fileformat but you could tell me :)
I suggest that we have 2 files related with each document type, one
textclass, as we have now, and something like a dtd.
The dtd would descrive the structure, and the textclass the presentation.
Inside the dtd you would know which are, and are not, allowed inside the
title, inside tables, and so on.
The textclass tell us how to display that layout.
We would need a dtd parser, but shouldn't be too dificult since the dtd
sysntax is very well defined.
Would this help with the file format, or are different issues?
Any comment?
> JMarc
Best Regards,
Jos�
--
Jos� Ab�lio de Oliveira Matos
Date: 23-Oct-98 : Time: 08:36:37 GMT
Call on God, but row away from the rocks.
-- Indian proverb
