Re: Off-topic: Plain text, XML or LaTex?

Re: Off-topic: Plain text, XML or LaTex?

[Urban Gabor]

Hi,

I would NOT suggest to switch to XML/docbook. We are using
it at the company, and each team-member has a slightly
divverent version of docbook tools, what is making the lifa
a boiling hot hell.

Latex is very easy to start and really high quality...

Gabaux
Linux is like a wigwam: no gates, no windows, and an apache
inside!

Re: Off-topic: Plain text, XML or LaTex?

[Galen Boyer]

On Mon, 23 Jun 2003, gabaux@freemail.hu wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I would NOT suggest to switch to XML/docbook. We are using
> it at the company, and each team-member has a slightly
> divverent version of docbook tools, what is making the lifa
> a boiling hot hell.

Hm... I will be enforcing this by having all of docbook coming
from CVS.  Whether one uses Emacs, notepad or ArborText, they
must use the docbook distribution in CVS.  Are you doing this and
still having issues?

-- 
Galen Boyer

RE: Off-topic: Plain text, XML or LaTex?

[Dmitri.Minaev]

Hello, Mac,

I'd say that it all depends on whether you can afford spending some time
tuning the XML tools to your needs. If yes, XML may be usable. Emacs is good
in editing XML (just as good as it is in editing anything else :) , there
are some XSL processors (like xsltproc) and XSL:FO formatters (PassiveTeX or
Apache FOP) of acceptable quality.

Anyway, you'll have either to choose some established standard (TEI or
DocBook) or to write your own XSL transformation from your own DTD to
XSL:FO, which means more time spent on tweaking the xsl files and writing
shell scripts.

The good side of XML is, of course, in XSL. The bad one is that it's still
far from being a ripe standard and some time will pass before, e.g.,
FO-formatters will fully comply with the current standard of XSL:FO.

See "XML, a new start for the Web"
(http://tex.loria.fr/xml-etc/goossens-xml2000.pdf) by M.Goossens and
"PassiveTeX: from XML to PDF"
(http://home.cern.ch/goossens/goossensrahtz.ps.gz) by M.Goossens and
S.Rahtz.

PS: Me, I prefer plain text on paper ;) I don't trust computers, you can
never know with 'em...

--
With best regards,
Dmitri Minaev


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mac [mailto:oonplnhd02@sneakemail.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 4:22 PM
> To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
> Subject: Off-topic: Plain text, XML or LaTex?
> 
> 
> 
> I apologize for this off-topic posting. But I really like to know how
> you fellow Emacsien feal about his.
> 
> I like plain text, and have for a long time used outline-mode to write
> both my own private notes as well as draft documents. I have also for
> a long time been thinking about moving to LaTex so that I also can
> produce my final documents in Emacs as well.
> 
> Now I have an opportunity to move to XML instead. So I would
> appreciate your thoughts about this.
> 
> How can I get up-to speed with writing XML inside Emacs? Is it worth
> it, or should I stick with plain-ol-text? Any pointers to tutorials,
> books etc is appreciated.
> 
> Perhaps you have a completely different setup that you are willing to
> share with me?
> 
> /mac
> 
> One reason for liking plain text is it's portability (but so are eg
> .pdf these days). Another is version control, I'm a heavy user of cvs
> (pcl-cvs is *great*).
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Help-gnu-emacs mailing list
> Help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gnu-emacs
> 

Off-topic: Plain text, XML or LaTex?

[Mac]

I apologize for this off-topic posting. But I really like to know how
you fellow Emacsien feal about his.

I like plain text, and have for a long time used outline-mode to write
both my own private notes as well as draft documents. I have also for
a long time been thinking about moving to LaTex so that I also can
produce my final documents in Emacs as well.

Now I have an opportunity to move to XML instead. So I would
appreciate your thoughts about this.

How can I get up-to speed with writing XML inside Emacs? Is it worth
it, or should I stick with plain-ol-text? Any pointers to tutorials,
books etc is appreciated.

Perhaps you have a completely different setup that you are willing to
share with me?

/mac

One reason for liking plain text is it's portability (but so are eg
.pdf these days). Another is version control, I'm a heavy user of cvs
(pcl-cvs is *great*).

Re: Off-topic: Plain text, XML or LaTex?

[Phillip Lord]

>>>>> "Mac" == Mac  <oonplnhd02@sneakemail.com> writes:

  Mac> I apologize for this off-topic posting. But I really like to
  Mac> know how you fellow Emacsien feal about his.

  Mac> I like plain text, and have for a long time used outline-mode
  Mac> to write both my own private notes as well as draft
  Mac> documents. I have also for a long time been thinking about
  Mac> moving to LaTex so that I also can produce my final documents
  Mac> in Emacs as well.

  Mac> Now I have an opportunity to move to XML instead. So I would
  Mac> appreciate your thoughts about this.


Latex is easy and quicker to write than any of the XML options that I
have tried (docbook/linux doc), and produces nicer documents anyway. 

XML is fairly hard to read, and to use, for doing text anyway. XML
support for Emacs is okay (through PSGML mode), but there are many XML
specs it doesn't work with (namespaces, XML schema and so on). 

Latex has it's irritations as well of course, but I think its a closer
match for what you want. 

Cheers

Phil

Re: Off-topic: Plain text, XML or LaTex?

[Mac]

After reading your posts, I think I'll start by trying out the
"XML/docbook in XAE" solution.

I like the fact that XML is machine-processable, and the theory that
it can be converted to other formats (HTML, PDF, hmm, should it not be
able to generate "reader friendly" plain-text as well?;-), not
forgetting the "sales factor" it has. 

I'll just have to sacrify the typhographic defects for now. I'll also
take a note of the issue regarding different versions of XML/docbook.

Thank you all for your comments and links, I really appreciated
everything.

/mac


Summary of your links:

XML Authoring Environment for Emacs 
  (http://xae.sunsite.dk)
XML, a new start for the Web
  (http://tex.loria.fr/xml-etc/goossens-xml2000.pdf) 
PassiveTeX: from XML to PDF
  (http://home.cern.ch/goossens/goossensrahtz.ps.gz)

Re: Off-topic: Plain text, XML or LaTex?

[Robert Mecklenburg]

Mac <oonplnhd02@sneakemail.com> wrote in message news:<81y8zqld4q.fsf@kwikemart.springfield.se>...
> After reading your posts, I think I'll start by trying out the
> "XML/docbook in XAE" solution.
> 
> I like the fact that XML is machine-processable, and the theory that
> it can be converted to other formats (HTML, PDF, hmm, should it not be
> able to generate "reader friendly" plain-text as well?;-), not
> forgetting the "sales factor" it has. 

You should take a very serious look at texinfo.  From a single texinfo
source file you can generate docbook, xml, html, TeX, info, and plain
text.  Obviously, the "sales factor" you'll get will be equivalent to
straight xml, but you'll also have the flexibility of the other
formats.  Texinfo is very pleasant to read and write (unlike docbook,
IMHO).  Emacs support for texinfo is excellent.  The ability to view
your "formatted" document as plain text is quite convenient also as
you edit in emacs.  Finally, it is an "industrial strength" solution,
quite a few books have been done in texinfo.

Cheers,
Robert

Re: Off-topic: Plain text, XML or LaTex?

[Martin Stemplinger]

On Mo Jun 23 2003 at 14:21, Mac <oonplnhd02@sneakemail.com> wrote:

I used LaTeX a lot during my time at the university and I'm using XML
now. Both are IMHO equally hard to learn at first but the XML/Docbook
combo is much easier to adapt to different layout needs (at least I
never managed to write my own LaTeX-Stylesheet).

A selection of tutorials for docbook can be found at
http://docbook.org/wiki/moin.cgi/DocBookTutorials. I found 
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/hoenicka_markus/ntsgml.html
specially useful which describes the setup of emacs for XML processing
(although targeted towards Windows environment).

HTH
Martin

Re: Off-topic: Plain text, XML or LaTex?

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Mon, 23 Jun 2003, oonplnhd02@sneakemail.com wrote:
> I like plain text, and have for a long time used outline-mode to
> write both my own private notes as well as draft documents. I have
> also for a long time been thinking about moving to LaTex so that I
> also can produce my final documents in Emacs as well.
> 
> Now I have an opportunity to move to XML instead. So I would
> appreciate your thoughts about this.
> 
> How can I get up-to speed with writing XML inside Emacs? Is it worth
> it, or should I stick with plain-ol-text? Any pointers to tutorials,
> books etc is appreciated.
> 
> Perhaps you have a completely different setup that you are willing
> to share with me?
> 
> One reason for liking plain text is it's portability (but so are eg
> .pdf these days). Another is version control, I'm a heavy user of
> cvs (pcl-cvs is *great*).

I like plain text too.  Generally I write a converter from my text
format to the desired format, using hand-coded parsing and templates.

Texinfo is actually very nice.  You can embed Latex commands in it, I
believe, and for technical documentation it is great.  The Emacs
texinfo-mode is very good.  Also, Texinfo needs minimal markup, most
of it is plain text you write.

I have used XML with various setups, and the XAE (a package that
glues several others together) is my favorite.  I wouldn't use
XML over plain text and Texinfo.

Ted

Re: Off-topic: Plain text, XML or LaTex?

[Jeffery B. Rancier]

Mac <oonplnhd02@sneakemail.com> writes:

It really depends on your application.  For specifications, reports,
documentation, etc.  I like using DocBook in XAE
(http://xae.sunsite.dk) along with PSGML.  The XML isn't as readable
as plain-text, but the power of using docbook is the fact that you
have your source written once in XML, then the theory is you can
generate various output formats (with possibe intermediate
translations), from the same source.  I.e., HTML, FO, PDF, etc.

Jeff

> I apologize for this off-topic posting. But I really like to know how
> you fellow Emacsien feal about his.
>
> I like plain text, and have for a long time used outline-mode to write
> both my own private notes as well as draft documents. I have also for
> a long time been thinking about moving to LaTex so that I also can
> produce my final documents in Emacs as well.
>
> Now I have an opportunity to move to XML instead. So I would
> appreciate your thoughts about this.
>
> How can I get up-to speed with writing XML inside Emacs? Is it worth
> it, or should I stick with plain-ol-text? Any pointers to tutorials,
> books etc is appreciated.
>
> Perhaps you have a completely different setup that you are willing to
> share with me?
>
> /mac
>
> One reason for liking plain text is it's portability (but so are eg
> .pdf these days). Another is version control, I'm a heavy user of cvs
> (pcl-cvs is *great*).

-- 
Thanks,
Jeff
,----
| Jeffery B. Rancier
| 
| Softechnics
| a METTLER TOLEDO company
`----

Re: Off-topic: Plain text, XML or LaTex?

[Roodwriter]

Mac wrote:

> 
> I apologize for this off-topic posting. But I really like to know how
> you fellow Emacsien feal about his.
> 
> I like plain text, and have for a long time used outline-mode to write
> both my own private notes as well as draft documents. I have also for
> a long time been thinking about moving to LaTex so that I also can
> produce my final documents in Emacs as well.
> 
> Now I have an opportunity to move to XML instead. So I would
> appreciate your thoughts about this.
> 
> How can I get up-to speed with writing XML inside Emacs? Is it worth
> it, or should I stick with plain-ol-text? Any pointers to tutorials,
> books etc is appreciated.
> 
> Perhaps you have a completely different setup that you are willing to
> share with me?
> 
> /mac
> 
> One reason for liking plain text is it's portability (but so are eg
> .pdf these days). Another is version control, I'm a heavy user of cvs
> (pcl-cvs is *great*).


I've never used XML but I have used LaTeX. I'm a big fan of it. I not only 
like its superior quality but the fact that the files are plain text.

File formats come and go but from my experience, plain text is forever.

LaTeX isn't for everyone, though. If what you're producing fits into the way 
it's set up, it'll be one of the easiest ways to go. If what you're 
producing doesn't fit in, you may be in for frustration. You can probably 
make it work but not without a lot of effort. Unless you like solving 
problems, or, like me, just fall in love with it.

For more opinions you could also post the question to comp.text.tex.

--Rod

-- 
Author of "Linux for Non-Geeks--Clear-eyed Answers for Practical Consumers" 
and "Boring Stories from Uncle Rod." Both are available at 
http://www.rodwriterpublishing.com/index.html

To reply by e-mail, take the extra "o" out of my e-mail address. It's to 
confuse spambots, of course.

Re: Off-topic: Plain text, XML or LaTex?

[Kai Großjohann]

Mac <oonplnhd02@sneakemail.com> writes:

> I like plain text, and have for a long time used outline-mode to write
> both my own private notes as well as draft documents. I have also for
> a long time been thinking about moving to LaTex so that I also can
> produce my final documents in Emacs as well.
>
> Now I have an opportunity to move to XML instead. So I would
> appreciate your thoughts about this.

I think the main advantage of using XML is that it is
machine-processable.  And the advantage of LaTeX is that it can
produce good-looking output easily.

There are ways to produce, say, HTML from LaTeX, but they are
inherently fragile and difficult to get right.  Or RTF, or whatever.
I guess that would be easier with XML.

But on the other hand, LaTeX has really great support for typography,
and I doubt that there is an XML processor that allows you to specify
whether a "." character is part of an abbreviation or the end of a
sentence.  (In English, end-of-sentence spacing differs from
inter-word spacing.)  In LaTeX this is quite easy.

Does this help?
-- 
This line is not blank.

Re: Off-topic: Plain text, XML or LaTex?

[Galen Boyer]

On Mon, 23 Jun 2003, jeff.rancier@softechnics.com wrote:

> the power of using docbook is the fact that you have your
> source written once in XML, then the theory is you can generate
> various output formats (with possibe intermediate
> translations), from the same source.  I.e., HTML, FO, PDF, etc.

Plus, the sales factor to your fellow compadres and upper
management includes the letters, XML.  My company is on the verge
of moving to docbook as its publication format (based solely on
my publications with it) and the fact that it has XML in its
description has the sexiness needed.  I could have never sold
some version of TEX, no matter how much better it might have
been.  Either way, one source for the documentation is the key,
and tagged documentation is the way to go.

-- 
Galen Boyer