> Yes, you're right of course. > I have a similar situation here: the xml > produced by ooo is too messy, so I want to preprocess it to something that > is easier to maintain and modify (e.g., I will, at some point, add index > entries and a TOC); that's why I use xslt here. But I still produce xml > which I process with mkiv. so you have xml --( xslt )-->xml--( mkiv ) --> pdf where the second xml is no normative, while the first yes.
In yor situation I prefear xml --( xslt )-->tex--( mkiv ) --> pdf because there is no much differences between stylesheets of xml --( xslt )-->xml and xml --( xslt )-->tex and there is a clear distinction of roles: xml carries the semantic, tex the presentation . This chain xml --( xslt )-->xml--( mkiv ) --> pdf can be reasonable if the first xml come out from a db extraction (you must be quick and make the correct queries, so this xml is typically in a row major fashion. ie like a table), and the second xml is book-oriented and it is simple . BTW "always choose whatever is right for you needs" >. Just to give me an idea: how would you > transform this: > > <text:span text:style-name="T3">foo</text:span> > > to this > > <emph>foo</emph> > > with lxml? lxml seems to object to the ":" in the tag, even though it's > declared in the document. I will give it a look -- 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 ___________________________________________________________________________________
