Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 11:15:31 -0400 From: Alejandro Imass <ait@p2ee.org> To: Gary Kline <kline@thought.org> Cc: FreeBSD Mailing List <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: TeX qurestions, for anybody who cares to reply... . Message-ID: <AANLkTinltuDJz24RNd3j9Ty5_owWqQ6U2--uxoK68mHo@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20100609035151.GA89606@thought.org> References: <20100609035151.GA89606@thought.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 11:51 PM, Gary Kline <kline@thought.org> wrote: > hi y'all! > [...] Just my 0.02: I use LaTeX directly strictly for typesetting but not for structure and content. In other words, for structure and content I prefer to work in a higher level structure such as DocBook or any other meta-model of a document, _and then_ transform to LaTeX for print (physical) typesetting. This has _many_ advantages since you can keep "the source" of your document in a high-level structure (SGML, XML., Wiki Markup, txt2tags, etc.) and more easily transform that to any media, including print. My personal preference is SGML and the DocBook structure, because it more easily adapts to our need. I prefer SGML DocBook because XSLT is still (and probably will always be) limited for the kinds of transformation needed to things like LaTex so DSSSL is much more powerful IMHO for that. Besides, the popular Norman Walsh stylesheets are so well though-out for books, that he usually get's it right, and they need very few tweaks to adapt them to your needs. Anyway, the message is that LaTex is an awesome technology for what it is: a typesetting system, not an authoring tool. If you keep you source data in a structured authoring format, you can later use the data per se, for example structured text searches, re-use of the data, etc. etc. etc. Best, Alejandro Imass
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTinltuDJz24RNd3j9Ty5_owWqQ6U2--uxoK68mHo>