On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Aditya Mahajan
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, James Fisher wrote:
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 4:06 AM, Aditya Mahajan
wrote: On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, James Fisher wrote:
(2) converted it all to reStructuredText using html2rest.py (
http://bitbucket.org/djerdo/musette/src/tip/musette/html/html2rest.py)
The values in texwebshow are generated from xml files http://source.contextgarden.net/tex/context/interface/cont-en.xml
Well now, that's interesting. May I ask where that XML itself comes
from? Is it hand-maintained by Hans/Taco/Patrick?
It is hand maintained. Ideally, whenever someone suggests an enhancement, they should also send an update for the interface files.
Ouch.
- In my humble opinion, TeXies need to get out of the habit of
'self-documenting' TeX using TeX itself. TeX is not some replacement for all markup, it's for producing beautiful books (OK, and some presentations); in any case, this habit smacks of introversion.
In this case it is not a question of markup, but of the output format, and whether the source and the documentation are in sync or not. Basically, context sources are documented as
%D documentation ...
\tex code
%D documentation
\tex code
In principle, we can replace the markup in the documentation to xml or an ascii markup. It is easy enough to extract the %D lines and post-process them by any tool that you like. The biggest advantage of using a pdf output is that we can show the output of code snippets. For example,
\startbuffer some tex code \stopbuffer
\typebuffer
gives
\getbuffer
thereby ensuring that the documentation is showing the correct behavior. To do this in html requires additional context run, converting the output to png, and displaying the png (this is how the wiki treats <context> ... </context> tags).
That is also something to think about. But I don't think it's really a
serious problem -- the Mediawiki <context> works well enough. In terms of user-friendliness I would say it works better than in a massive PDF -- I would rather consult an image on the web.
I personally prefer a massive PDF to a massive HTML with lots of images. With pdf you can also *search* the output. A perfect solution will be to generate both outputs from a single source, but that means a custom made solution.
I'll put the PDF vs. HTML argument to rest :) ... suffice to say that I thoroughly agree a semantic single-source solution with multiple outputs is highly desirable. I've just two pieces of guidance on the roads not to go down: (1) XML isn't a great solution because, while it's purely semantic, extensible, easily parseable, and all the rest of it, it is *horrible* to look at and maintain (2) TeX isn't a great solution because of its curious property that it is only really parseable by TeX itself ... none of the "tex-to-<whatever>" attempts that I've seen are a viable option IMO.
It wouldn't be too hard to alter Sphinx (as a for example; I suggest
Sphinx so we can talk concretely) so that all TeX-markupped code is shown side-by-side as [ syntax-highlighted code | ConTeXt output as PNG ]. (This would be an improvement on the wiki implementation where the TeX code is duplicated in the source.)
This is what wiki does. <context source="yes"> shows both the source and the output side by side. This was a later edition, so there is still code that duplicates the source in <texcode> and <context>
Duly noted. I guess I've just happened to only see the latter.
Aditya
___________________________________________________________________________________ If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!
maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net archive : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________