Maurice Diamantini wrote:
> So if I understand wml, I agree that xml is a format for filtering,
> not a human writable format.
> TeX, LaTeX or conTeXt is in input langage, which should be able to
> be converted to the powerfull master XML format.
No, sorry. This only works for extremely simple TeX code. forget
about any real-world mathematics. Forget about 80% of what real-world
LaTeX users type into their computers. TeX has simply never been
written to be easily parsed. Besides, our actual users are way too much
concerned with what their stuff looks like on their screens with their
settings to bother about structured information and the like. Believe
me, I have almost finished the translation of our highly structured
program documentation files to some DocBook-based XML format, and I am
very happy that I had decided to make this a one-time conversion with
the automated process only trying to get some 95% or so correct. My
experience with the new format (which is still limited, I've been
working with it the last four months or so) leads me to believe that it
is no more difficult to use than some TeX dialect. The only slightly
awkward thing is that you have to explicitly mark all paragraphs. I
don't mind, but if you do, that sort of thing can be scripted.
Short summary: Define an xml format that embeds what you need at the
moment. One mistake I made: I didn't go for short names, but used
DocBook names. I probably should have started from XHTML, using <p>,
<em>, <a> etc. Then use that format as your master and edit in this
format. There are magnitudes more decent editors to help you with
editing all sorts of xml than you will ever find for any TeX variant.
(I know, one is sufficient, but finding one that does exactly what *you*
want is much easier with more editors to choose from.)
> So my question was, is there any exeprience about the use of
> the ConTeXt module "m-tex4ht"?
I do have experience with using tex4ht in LaTeX, which is its native
setting. It is definitely much better than all the alternatives I
tried, but it does have problems with formulas, it is rather difficult
to teach it your new local commands and the generated HTML code is
usable for exactly one thing: Rendering in a graphical browser, for us
lucky ones without visual impairments. I would not dream of using this
pile of mess for anything else. HTML generated by Word simply can't be
worse.
regards,
Christopher
_______________________________________________
ntg-context mailing list
ntg-context@ntg.nl
http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
