Luigi and Khaled,
thanks a lot for your replies! Luigi: I had a look at python lxml; it looks
very powerful and interesting, and I will try and see if can make use of it.
Why do you translate your xml sources into tex instead of using the mkiv
mechanism for processing xml, is it because of speed?
(sorry x my laziness)
If I have a good xml , then mkiv is a good choice. As far I know, mkiv
~ xslt by lpeg, so
"traditional"
xml--( xslt )-->tex--( mkiv )-->pdf
is like
xml-->( mkiv )-->pdf
Note that in the last chain one mixes xml+tex: if xml become complex,
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Thomas A. Schmitz
wrote:
this can end in a messy situation.
But some documents need heavy preprocessing:
for example, I have one that come from java classes serialization,
and I need the power of python (lxml) to do a clean work .
Also, if xml changes , I 've found that lxml is more flexible than xslt.
In this case I have
xml--( lxml )-->tex--( mkiv )-->pdf
The fact is that python and lua are not so differents,
so I've to manage two languages
(python+lua) and tex;
with 'traditional' workflow you have to manage 3 languages
xslt,lua and tex
and subdivide responsability is not so easy as the former .
BTW, I have no test that say "this one is quickly than that one" .
--
luigi
