Gour wrote:
>
> Few days ago I came across aft markup language, and now I just "discovered"
> aptconvert for apt markup.
>
> I'm wondering whether they are the tools with the same capabilities or they
> are different species :-)
>
> I tried to convert aft reference manual into DocBook article but was not able
> to open the converted file in XXE (V2.0 beta).
>
> (In aft docs it is said that conversion is for DocBook article 3.1).
>
> otoh for apt it is stated that it produces DocBook, so I'd like to know
> whether
> aft & apt support the same features?
>
> I hope it is not to off-topic - it's connected with both xfc as well with xxe.
I don't know AFT (Almost Free Text). Probably similar ideas with similar
names (!!!) implemented almost at the same time by two different
persons.
You'll have to choose which one you prefer.
XXE User's Guide is still written in APT (Almost Plain Text) but with
XXE rather than Emacs, just to be able to:
[1] get a really nice PDF (nicer than with FOP, thanks to
TeX+Ghostscript).
[2] to be able to translate it to XHTML. XXE users can then load the
generated XHTML into XXE in order to evaluate our editor.
[3] to be able to translate it to DocBook/XML (4.1.2). XXE users can
then load the generated DocBook into XXE in order to evaluate our
editor.
Here's the aptconvert command used to convert the user's guide to
DocBook:
aptconvert -enc ISO8859_1 -nonum -pi docbook horizontalRule "" \
-pi docbook pageBreak "" \
-pi docbook lineBreak "" \
../../distrib/docs/user/userguide.xml \
title.txt intro.txt install.txt tutorial.txt productive.txt
All this is documented. See
http://www.xmlmind.com/aptconvert/distrib/docs/userguidetoc.html
