Christian Theune wrote:

* Stephan Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050420 15:59]:

On Wednesday 20 April 2005 09:42, Florent Guillaume wrote:

Gaaaah !!!! Why oh why ? The document is now totally unreadable, except
by reading a generated .ps or .pdf. That's not the way to go for
documentation :(

Ok. I should have made the change set come together.

But I don't consider LaTeX to be unreadable.

That's because you're a LaTeX crack. :)

Remember that this document has to be read by an independent third party and they want nicely layouted pages, which I think they have a right to demand. ReST can just not provide that, but LaTeX can. Also, for simple (in terms of layout) documents like this, they are still readable in LaTeX source form.

Right. Additionally we have a couple of large and complex tables around
that ReST simply can't handle. It's less for having nice stuff than
having a system that can actually handle it. Also, very likely the
document is going to be split in multiple files because it's pretty
large right now.

I admire LaTeX's typesetting capabilities. I despise of LaTeX because of its missing content model. Nearly all semantic value of a document's contents is lost into some cryptic language that isn't even about semantics but about layout.

Having said that, I fully understand that people who work on complicated things (and the CC spec demands a certain layout from this document, so even layouting this *is* a complicated task) chose the tools that help them and that they can work with best.

Btw, for my book I used DocBook XML which is not about layout at all but provides a sane and easily parsable (it's XML!) content model. Using XLST you can go anywhere, for example PDF (first to xslt-fo and then with FOP or similar to PDF) or even to LaTeX (which is what I did for the book). But, again, it's a matter of taste, too.

Zope3-dev mailing list

Reply via email to