Hello Haskellers, i'm now write documention about Template Haskell in MS Word. when it will be written, i will be glad to publish it in Wiki, so anyone can correct it. and when all be done, it will be great to automatically convert this wiki text to DocBook XML for inserting in GHC documentation can anyone say me about tools/scripts which can be used to do this? or share your ideas - how can i write scripts to do it? -- Best regards, Bulat mailto:bulatz@HotPOP.com
Frankly, the best way to go about writing your doc would be to do it in LaTeX/literate haskell. That way you could compile it to html/pdf/whatever. On 15/11/2005, at 2:40 AM, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello Haskellers,
i'm now write documention about Template Haskell in MS Word. when it will be written, i will be glad to publish it in Wiki, so anyone can correct it. and when all be done, it will be great to automatically convert this wiki text to DocBook XML for inserting in GHC documentation
can anyone say me about tools/scripts which can be used to do this? or share your ideas - how can i write scripts to do it?
-- Best regards, Bulat mailto:bulatz@HotPOP.com
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Am Dienstag, 15. November 2005 12:44 schrieb Scott Weeks:
Frankly, the best way to go about writing your doc would be to do it in LaTeX/literate haskell. That way you could compile it to html/pdf/whatever.
Oh no! Converting LaTeX to HTML is terrible, in my opinion. One reason for this is that LaTeX isn't a markup language and provides a mixture of logical and visual macros. Best wishes, Wolfgang
Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
Oh no! Converting LaTeX to HTML is terrible, in my opinion. One reason for this is that LaTeX isn't a markup language and provides a mixture of logical and visual macros.
Conversely, I've occasionally tried to convert stuff - I think a TMR issue was one example, and occasionally HTML documents - to PDF via LaTeX. Unfortunately, people used a variety of ways to get the desired look and feel, and it's very difficult to do the conversion automatically (or 'unsupervised' as we like to call it here :-). The ideal is to have a simple, rigid, semantic markup in the source document. While I dislike XML at least as much as the next guy, it is probably the best choice for this. Ideally, the DTD should be a lot simpler than DocBook, but OTOH, DocBook comes with a lot of conversion methods for free. -k
Am Mittwoch, 16. November 2005 10:10 schrieben Sie:
[...]
The ideal is to have a simple, rigid, semantic markup in the source document. While I dislike XML at least as much as the next guy, it is probably the best choice for this. Ideally, the DTD should be a lot simpler than DocBook, but OTOH, DocBook comes with a lot of conversion methods for free.
You are not forced to use all the different markup facilities. Somewhere in the DocBook documentation they state (or used to state) that at many points it's up to the writer how detailed he/she wants to markup his/her texts. In addition, there is Simplified DocBook (see http://docbook.org/). By the way, DocBook XML is defined by Relax NG schemas nowadays, not DTDs. Well, there are DTDs available.
-k
Best wishes, Wolfgang
participants (4)
-
Bulat Ziganshin -
Ketil Malde -
Scott Weeks -
Wolfgang Jeltsch