On 11 Nov 2012, at 17:26, Stéphane Ducasse <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Nov 10, 2012, at 9:41 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: > >> On 10 Nov 2012, at 21:33, Stéphane Ducasse <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>> 3. Lets discuss how we want to describe the content "in-image" >>>> for "serving on the web". Maybe with a "Markup to HTML translator" >>>> - or a "WikiStyle to HTML" like help >>> >>> I want to use the pier syntax because I know that I can generate the >>> correct latex >>> with it for the books, and of course any kind of html and other formats. >> >> I vote for Markdown, it is more like a defacto standard. > > I prefer pier since I can convert all the book macros (and I cannot do that > in markdown). > I'm spending so much time writing that at least I want the result to look > more than a bad documentation. > >> And you can convert Markdown into anything, there exit tons of tools for it. >> >> Remember that I sent you my Zinc & Zodiac docs converted to Latex ? Were >> they no good ? > > It depends at which level. > Can you tag on word in markdown to have bold, italic, index? > If I would not have written 350 pages of seaside book with pier it would be a > different story but > so far pier syntax is good for doing everything: html, latex, even markdown. In Markdown, it is *italic* or _italic_ and **bold** and __bold__. Now for index entries, I don't know exactly - making an automatic index is a special post process function anyway. I think you could do something like [ReadStream][index-entry]s are objects that you can read bytes or characters from. Making a book from several independent source files is quite a job that requires custom programming. It would be very cool if we could do all that in Smalltalk, using a good Markdown parser and a cool object representation. I have nothing against Pier, but it is something that only exists in our niche world, not in the larger world out there. Sven
