Am Thu, 28 Jul 2011 01:24:04 -0700 schrieb Johannes Wilm:
>>> What I wonder though is what the state of the HTML that is being output >>> really is. It seems to me specifically that: >>> a. almost none of the <p>-tags are closed >> Use the xhtml-Option I mentioned earlier. > Ah, yes that's probably what I should done to start out with. Now when I > switch html for xhtml, it somehow breaks my SVG-fixing script. I didn't know > that the html-option would produce partially invalid HTML, as it seems. It doesn't produce invalid html, it produce html 4.01: <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" Which is different to xhtml which would get with the xhtml option <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" >>> b. an element that is used a lot are "tspans" which the W3C validation >>> claims to not have heard about. http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/text.html#TSpanElement > I guess everything is currently changing, like > bibtex -> biblatex bibtex is an application and biblatex a package. The transition is more bibtex + natbib or bibtex + jurabib or bibtex + some bib-style -> bibtex + biblatex or biber + biblatex. > pdftex -> luatex > 8 bit -> utf-8 > PDF -> EPUB these are formats for very different purposes. pdf is a page description format, while in ebook/web-formats text can be easily refloated. > PNG -> SVG PNG is a bitmap format, SVG a vector format. How would convert a foto to a vector format? > Kile -> LyX I will certainly never use LyX, and I don't any TeX/LaTeX/context expert who considers such a step. -- Ulrike Fischer
