On Feb 17, 2009, at 11:07 PM, luigi scarso wrote:
(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, this can end in a messy situation.
Yes, you're right of course. I have a similar situation here: the xml produced by ooo is too messy, so I want to preprocess it to something that is easier to maintain and modify (e.g., I will, at some point, add index entries and a TOC); that's why I use xslt here. But I still produce xml which I process with mkiv.
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 .
Interesting. I have tried to play around with python-lxml, but am
having some problems to understand it. Just to give me an idea: how
would you transform this: