#10637: Implement sage -sws2rst
------------------------------------------------------------+---------------
Reporter: nthiery | Owner:
jason, mpatel, was
Type: enhancement | Status:
needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone:
sage-5.2
Component: notebook | Resolution:
Keywords: ReST, worksheet | Work issues:
Report Upstream: Workaround found; Bug reported upstream. | Reviewers:
Nicolas Thiéry, Jason Grout, Karl-Dieter Crisman, Jason Bandlow
Authors: Pablo Angulo, Karl-Dieter Crisman | Merged in:
Dependencies: #11080, #11459 | Stopgaps:
------------------------------------------------------------+---------------
Comment (by kcrisman):
> > * In results sections, is all html being removed? Is there a reason
for this? I assume that this is to take care of a specific type of result
that can occur that I can't think of right now. After all, a Sage cell is
a Python cell, and html certainly could be legitimate output.
Here's an example - @interact output is html. In sws2tex, whuss and
friends just completely ignore them - perhaps not the worst idea, given
that it's supposed to be interactive and a tex (or rst) document isn't, by
definition.
> What should I do? I don't feel like parsing it into rst, because it's
output, and parsing is lossy. I cannot be too literal either, because I
have to leave something that works when the rst files are rendered into
html, tex or whatever.
I suppose one could start the tree all over again? But that seems less
than ideal. Would it be possible to place the html in code tags? I am
wondering what some of the typical examples you ran across were.
Certainly we can't (or at least don't want to, maybe rest supports this)
support all the style stuff html would support.
> The question is related to others, like the one on tracebacks for
example. I didn't like long tracebacks in the docs, which would scare my
non-technical prospective readers. Should I rewrite sws2rst to incorporate
several config options, like long_tracebacks or parse_html_in_results or
replace_monospace_font_by_code_tags? Can you think of others?
Maybe in another ticket, in general. The html one I was a little unsure,
since html output could be legitimate. I do think that the monospace
(Courier, I guess?) by code shouldn't be the default, just because that
seems to be your own personal trick, but conceivably others might just
want text, and might be surprised if all text that was in lots of TinyMCE
fonts looks the same, except the text in that particular font. I wish we
had a way to turn the different font sizes into different rest...
Anyway, it's clear that there are no ''major'' changes required here. I'm
going to start testing the same set of worksheets Jason tried last year
now, since I'm hoping to convert them anyway, and see what happens. Let's
hope this can get in by Sage 5.3!
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10637#comment:61>
Sage <http://www.sagemath.org>
Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica,
and MATLAB
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-trac" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac?hl=en.
