[NTG-context] ConTeXt and DocBook - beginner's questions
h h extern
pragma at wxs.nl
Sun Feb 27 20:44:58 CET 2005
Adam Lindsay wrote:
> These namespaces contain elements with different levels of abstraction.
> ContML is higher-level, more structural, fx (just a demonstration, so
> far) was a bit more low-level, somewhere between ConTeXt and FO.
one of the downsides of xml is that it comes with set of 'standard solutions'
that, instead of aiming at specific areas, try to cover all. This sometimes may
backfire; for instance, at pragma we encounter projects where:
- "everyone told us fo is the ultimate solution, so let's apply fo for real
typesetting i.e. replace dtp", while (1) fo provides a subset of solutions, (2)
sometimes a typesettign engine needs some info in order to provide a good
solution (e.g. not all tables are tables, and not all section headers are items,
and consistent typesetting demands structured font handling instead of local
font specs and switches)
- "our documents are coded in xml, so we can do everything we want", while in
practice most docs are rather poorly coded, lack detail, lack detailed
structure, demonstrate tag abuse, etc. you don't wanna know what we run into
- the idea behind the fx approach is to stay in the xml realm while providing
the full power of a typesetting engine; for instance, one xan use xslt to handle
ann the numbering, but at the same time let the typesetting engine know that it
is dealing with sectioning; or, one can map tabular data onto the most suitable
mechanism available, or one can stick to symbolic font changes and let the
engine apply the best strategy
> This is one of the biggest blessings and curses of XML. Having helped
> design an ISO standard using XML, this had an immense effect on what we
> did. Yes, it's a standard, but how can we be sure that people don't try
> to create documents with other, private elements?
eh, the < > part is standard, element (names) are free
> FO isn't for everyone.
> In fact, some here have a rather poor opinion of it. (I tend to agree,
> but let's try to steer away from a flame war.)
one interesting application of fo i see is 'placed xml'
[all those approaches, fo included, have their pro's and con's so let's support
them all and use them when applicable;
> However, XSL-FO is rather indisputably a page layout vocabulary, and not
> semantic/structured markup. If you're from the TEI world, I don't need to
> go further there.
one thing that i notice in applying fo is that it is used in ways and for docs
that would look way better when simple mapping was used, apart from the fact
that it would process faster;
xml -> xslt -> xml -> intermediate tex -> tex -> pdf
xml -> xslt -> xml -> context -> pdf
is a solution for many situations : use xslt for powerfull manipulations (for
which tex is not real handy) and use tex for doing the typesetting
>>Creating these workaround
>>vocabularies adds another layer to processing and seems to add to the
>>complexity of processing XML.
the idea is to have libraries with xml snippets (compare this to xslt: we now
see libraries showing up there as well to get around the nasty bits)
> Depends on the source format. I use that extended ContML as an
> intermediate format, because I'm converting from a much more complex file
> format that doesn't make the document structure very transparent. That
> suits my needs well.
that's indeed the idea
> It's one of the reasons why I bring things to my intermediate format that
> corresponds with ConTeXt macros: I can break into expert ConTeXt to
> configure things when I want to get sophisticated.
indeed, but i admit that we need to provide demos of that approach in order to
show the benefits
[another benefit is that when we stay in the xml realm, we can use xml editors
for a starter, just play with
xml -> xslt -> contextcode -> pdf
xml -> xslt -> xml -> contextmappings -> pdf
xml -> contextmappings -> pdf
first, because you get a feeling for what context does then,
Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com
More information about the ntg-context