![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/3d86d93abcc56d7b5843cc1ce58bbfd6.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Maurice Diamantini wrote:
So if I understand wml, I agree that xml is a format for filtering, not a human writable format. TeX, LaTeX or conTeXt is in input langage, which should be able to be converted to the powerfull master XML format.
No, sorry. This only works for extremely simple TeX code. forget about any real-world mathematics. Forget about 80% of what real-world LaTeX users type into their computers. TeX has simply never been written to be easily parsed. Besides, our actual users are way too much concerned with what their stuff looks like on their screens with their settings to bother about structured information and the like. Believe me, I have almost finished the translation of our highly structured program documentation files to some DocBook-based XML format, and I am very happy that I had decided to make this a one-time conversion with the automated process only trying to get some 95% or so correct. My experience with the new format (which is still limited, I've been working with it the last four months or so) leads me to believe that it is no more difficult to use than some TeX dialect. The only slightly awkward thing is that you have to explicitly mark all paragraphs. I don't mind, but if you do, that sort of thing can be scripted. Short summary: Define an xml format that embeds what you need at the moment. One mistake I made: I didn't go for short names, but used DocBook names. I probably should have started from XHTML, using <p>, <em>, <a> etc. Then use that format as your master and edit in this format. There are magnitudes more decent editors to help you with editing all sorts of xml than you will ever find for any TeX variant. (I know, one is sufficient, but finding one that does exactly what *you* want is much easier with more editors to choose from.)
So my question was, is there any exeprience about the use of the ConTeXt module "m-tex4ht"?
I do have experience with using tex4ht in LaTeX, which is its native setting. It is definitely much better than all the alternatives I tried, but it does have problems with formulas, it is rather difficult to teach it your new local commands and the generated HTML code is usable for exactly one thing: Rendering in a graphical browser, for us lucky ones without visual impairments. I would not dream of using this pile of mess for anything else. HTML generated by Word simply can't be worse. regards, Christopher