On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Thomas A. Schmitz <[email protected]> wrote: > Luigi and Khaled, > > thanks a lot for your replies! Luigi: I had a look at python lxml; it looks > very powerful and interesting, and I will try and see if can make use of it. > Why do you translate your xml sources into tex instead of using the mkiv > mechanism for processing xml, is it because of speed? (sorry x my laziness) If I have a good xml , then mkiv is a good choice. As far I know, mkiv ~ xslt by lpeg, so "traditional" xml--( xslt )-->tex--( mkiv )-->pdf is like xml-->( mkiv )-->pdf Note that in the last chain one mixes xml+tex: if xml become complex, this can end in a messy situation.
But some documents need heavy preprocessing: for example, I have one that come from java classes serialization, and I need the power of python (lxml) to do a clean work . Also, if xml changes , I 've found that lxml is more flexible than xslt. In this case I have xml--( lxml )-->tex--( mkiv )-->pdf The fact is that python and lua are not so differents, so I've to manage two languages (python+lua) and tex; with 'traditional' workflow you have to manage 3 languages xslt,lua and tex and subdivide responsability is not so easy as the former . BTW, I have no test that say "this one is quickly than that one" . -- luigi ___________________________________________________________________________________ If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki! maillist : [email protected] / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net archive : https://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___________________________________________________________________________________
