From: Ben F. <big...@be...> - 2007-01-30 02:32:42
|
Howdy all, The Docutils documentation for LaTeX writing says: If --use-latex-toc is specified the latex-writer generates LaTeX output, so that LaTeX generates a table of contents ... The advantage is that LaTeX does put page numbers into the table of contents ... <URL:http://docutils.sourceforge.net/docs/user/latex.html#section-numbering> Yes, it does put page numbers in. However, those page numbers are *wrong*. I've got a document where the table of contents generated by LaTeX has all the page numbers out by several pages. Docutils version: $ rst2latex --version rst2latex (Docutils 0.4.1 [repository]) Relevant settings used to generate LaTeX: $ cd src/ && rst2latex \ --config docutils.conf \ --stylesheet-path stylesheet.tex $ cat src/docutils.conf # src/docutils.conf # Configuration for docutils processor for this project [latex2e writer] documentclass = book documentoptions = 12pt,a4paper use_latex_toc = yes use_latex_docinfo = yes $ cat src/stylesheet.tex % allows use of by-chapter tables of content \usepackage{minitoc} % no page numbers in TOC \renewcommand{\numberline}[1]{} % Turns off all numbering \setcounter{secnumdepth}{-1} How can I get a LaTeX table of contents, section-numbered appropriately, with correct page numbers? If I can provide other information for diagnosis, please say so. -- \ "All progress has resulted from people who took unpopular | `\ positions." -- Adlai Stevenson | _o__) | Ben Finney |
From: Felix W. <Fel...@os...> - 2007-01-30 03:30:47
|
Ben Finney wrote: > I've got a document where the table of contents generated by > LaTeX has all the page numbers out by several pages. You may need to run LaTeX twice (or even thrice if the length of the TOC changes during the first run) because LaTeX uses the section numbers from the *previous* run. In case you're interested, they get stored in the .aux file. Does this help? Best wishes, Felix -- Felix Wiemann -- http://www.ososo.de/ |
From: Ben F. <big...@be...> - 2007-01-30 04:27:10
|
Felix Wiemann <Fel...@os...> writes: > Ben Finney wrote: > > > I've got a document where the table of contents generated by > > LaTeX has all the page numbers out by several pages. > > You may need to run LaTeX twice (or even thrice I wrote a rant here on how much I hate using the LaTeX software, and then deleted it. So that's out of the way. How can I know, automatically within the Makefile that runs latexpdf, when I've run it enough times? Is fifteen times enough? Is there any single command that I can run to get from a latex document to a PDF document, automatically and without "maybe you also need to run this as well but you'll have to check manually"? -- \ "If [a technology company] has confidence in their future | `\ ability to innovate, the importance they place on protecting | _o__) their past innovations really should decline." -- Gary Barnett | Ben Finney <be...@be...> |
From: Ladislav L. <lh...@ce...> - 2007-02-02 08:54:25
|
G. Milde p=ED=B9e v P=E1 02. 02. 2007 v 09:21 +0100: > IMO, the rst2newlatex writer goes a lot in this direction, trying hard = to > keep the side-effects of LaTeX small (at the cost of readability of the > *.tex source). Well, if there is something else for going straight to PDF, it would make more sense for a LaTeX writer to produce a nice clean LaTeX source that can be easily manually adjusted. >=20 > This is one use of the (La)TeX exporter, which actually might be better > served with pure TeX (if there is a "non-La" TeX wizard to write (and > maintain) a TeX writer). I'll try it, actually I am now dealing with a very similar problem in another (XML) context. >=20 > However, is there such a thing like pdftex, can pdflatex handle non-La > TeX, or will a rst2tex2pdf writer need to use dvips. Sure, there is pdftex that generates PDF from plain TeX. >=20 > > Having said that, I think rst2latex still has its uses - people may j= ust > > need LaTeX or want to fiddle with it.=20 >=20 > I think docutils should keep a true LaTeX *exporter* that is aimed at a > clean LaTeX output for use cases where the *.tex file will be worked on= . > (or, e.g. included in a larger document written by LyX.) I see rst2late= x > more in this line as rst2newlatex. Absolutely. Cheers, Lada --=20 Ladislav Lhotka, CESNET PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C |
From: G. M. <mi...@us...> - 2007-02-02 17:24:29
|
On 2.02.07, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > G. Milde pí?e v Pá 02. 02. 2007 v 09:21 +0100: > Well, if there is something else for going straight to PDF, it would > make more sense for a LaTeX writer to produce a nice clean LaTeX source > that can be easily manually adjusted. IMO, we need both, * a PDF writer or maybe even several ones (be it via latex, tex or something else (reportlab, Prince, some XSLT, ...) that convert reStructured Text to "camera ready" PDF without "side effects". This is for people that want "no fuss" pretty printing for hardcopies on paper or electronic documents in PDF. They will do the customization in rst or via the command line options of the writer. * a LaTeX writer that exports reStructured Text to a clean LaTeX that could be edited or included in another document. This is for people that want to use docutils as a "front end" for LaTeX + to have More control about the final appearance, + to combine the ease of input in rst with the power of LaTeX and all its extension packages or + in need of a special output format due to the specifications of a publisher (who might provide a LaTeX package for it). In my case, I plan to include parts of pylit->rst->LaTeX documents into a thesis written mainly with LyX (another LaTeX frontend). > > This is one use of the (La)TeX exporter, which actually might be better > > served with pure TeX (if there is a "non-La" TeX wizard to write (and > > maintain) a TeX writer). > I'll try it, actually I am now dealing with a very similar problem in > another (XML) context. This is good news. Keep us informed about the progress... Na sledanou Günter |
From: Paul T. <pht...@ig...> - 2007-02-03 13:41:14
|
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 17:44:18 +0100 "G. Milde" <mi...@us...> wrote: > On 2.02.07, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > G. Milde p=ED?e v P=E1 02. 02. 2007 v 09:21 +0100: >=20 > > Well, if there is something else for going straight to PDF, it would > > make more sense for a LaTeX writer to produce a nice clean LaTeX > > source that can be easily manually adjusted. >=20 > IMO, we need both,=20 >=20 >=20 I agree with your post completely. I myself would rather edit a clean latex than one that is cluttered but has so-called less side affects. >From the experience of converting XML documents to both camera-ready PDF and clean latex, I have found clean latex much more useful and practical in the end. Paul |
From: Alan G I. <ai...@am...> - 2007-01-30 05:25:26
|
>> Ben Finney wrote: >>> I've got a document where the table of contents generated by >>> LaTeX has all the page numbers out by several pages. > Felix Wiemann <Fel...@os...> writes: >> You may need to run LaTeX twice (or even thrice On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Ben Finney apparently wrote: > I wrote a rant here on how much I hate using the LaTeX software, and > then deleted it. So that's out of the way. > How can I know, automatically within the Makefile that runs latexpdf, > when I've run it enough times? Is fifteen times enough? Is there any > single command that I can run to get from a latex document to a PDF > document, automatically and without "maybe you also need to run this > as well but you'll have to check manually"? LaTeX is great, but it helps to know something about how it works. If you want a LaTeX table of contents, you need to know how LaTeX generates it. The contents are output to a .toc file when LaTeX is run, so you will need to run LaTeX twice after editing your file: once to update the .toc file, and once to include the updated .toc file. (It should be obvious that you cannot include it until after it has been gerenated.) If the updated .toc spills onto a new page, thus pushing the sections forward by a page, you must run LaTeX a 3rd time. Cheers, Alan Isaac |
From: Felix W. <Fel...@os...> - 2007-01-30 07:00:34
|
Ben Finney wrote: > I wrote a rant here on how much I hate using the LaTeX software, and > then deleted it. So that's out of the way. I would probably agree. There's just no better free typesetting software around. So we're kinda stuck with that. > Does this apply if I'm not running LaTeX directly, but instead using > 'latexpdf'? You mean pdflatex? That's just a normal latex that generates PDF instead of DVI, plus some (minor) features. Not much of a difference. > How do I, in a single Makefile rule, convert LaTeX (as output by > rst2latex) to a PDF? Run pdflatex (or latex+dvipdf) thrice, if you want to be on the safe side. Or run it twice to cover most cases. I usually run it only twice/thrice before final proofreading, publishing, or printing (and only if I have page references at all), otherwise I favor speed over correct TOC page numbers and run it only once. Best wishes, Felix -- Felix Wiemann -- http://www.ososo.de/ |
From: Beni C. <cb...@us...> - 2007-02-23 13:57:37
|
On 1/30/07, Felix Wiemann <Fel...@os...> wrote: > Ben Finney wrote: > > > I wrote a rant here on how much I hate using the LaTeX software, and > > then deleted it. So that's out of the way. > > I would probably agree. There's just no better free typesetting > software around. So we're kinda stuck with that. > Lout is definitely cleaner and nicer, but perhaps less powerful than LaTeX. TeXmacs is excellent, with LaTeX-like quality and WYSIWYG! As friendly as it gets. Now that I think of it, a docutils-powered reST converter intergrated into TeXmacs would be very cool. Alas, it is of no use for me until TeXmacs gets bidi support for right-to-left languages (specifically Hebrew). -- Beni Cherniavsky <cb...@us...> (I read email only on weekends) |
From: Ben F. <big...@be...> - 2007-01-30 09:53:20
|
Felix Wiemann <Fel...@os...> writes: > Ben Finney wrote: > > Does this apply if I'm not running LaTeX directly, but instead > > using 'latexpdf'? > > You mean pdflatex? Er, yes. Sorry for the confusion. > I usually run it only twice/thrice before final proofreading, > publishing, or printing (and only if I have page references at all), > otherwise I favor speed over correct TOC page numbers and run it > only once. I'm utterly astounded that a typesetting system that will leave the page numbers *wrong* in a table of contents is considered ready for use. > > How do I, in a single Makefile rule, convert LaTeX (as output by > > rst2latex) to a PDF? > > Run pdflatex (or latex+dvipdf) thrice, if you want to be on the safe > side. Or run it twice to cover most cases. Okay. I've now run it thrice, and still got a PDF with the page number references wrong in the TOC. How can I diagnose what's going wrong? -- \ "I'd like to see a nude opera, because when they hit those high | `\ notes, I bet you can really see it in those genitals." -- Jack | _o__) Handey | Ben Finney <be...@be...> |
From: Alan G I. <ai...@am...> - 2007-01-30 14:30:57
|
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Ben Finney apparently wrote: > I've now run it thrice, and still got a PDF with the page > number references wrong in the TOC. This is pretty odd. I can kind of imagine it if LaTeX is having trouble placing lots of floats. Are you using LaTeX footnotes? If not, turn that option on and see if things are better. Cheers, Alan Isaac |
From: Felix W. <Fel...@os...> - 2007-01-30 14:46:36
|
Ben Finney wrote: > Okay. I've now run it thrice, and still got a PDF with the page number > references wrong in the TOC. Something may be wrong with the LaTeX writer then. Can you provide a minimal example document? Best wishes, Felix -- Felix Wiemann -- http://www.ososo.de/ |
From: Ben F. <big...@be...> - 2007-01-30 23:05:53
|
Ben Finney <big...@be...> writes: > Felix Wiemann <Fel...@os...> writes: > > > Run pdflatex (or latex+dvipdf) thrice, if you want to be on the > > safe side. Or run it twice to cover most cases. > > Okay. I've now run it thrice, and still got a PDF with the page number > references wrong in the TOC. Thanks to the request to make a working example, it seems that I can get a correct table of contents, if and only if I process the LaTeX commands three times in succession with *no* processing of any kind in between. Thanks to all for all the patient help. My search for something reliable will continue, but until then it seems we have LaTeX. -- \ "Earth gets its price for what Earth gives us." -- James | `\ Russell Lowell | _o__) | Ben Finney <be...@be...> |
From: Alan G I. <ai...@am...> - 2007-01-30 14:26:23
|
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Ben Finney apparently wrote: > I'm utterly astounded that a typesetting system that will > leave the page numbers wrong in a table of contents is > considered ready for use. It does not "leave" them. You do. Cheers, Alan Isaac |
From: Ben F. <big...@be...> - 2007-01-30 23:02:07
|
Alan G Isaac <ai...@am...> writes: > On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Ben Finney apparently wrote: > > I'm utterly astounded that a typesetting system that will leave > > the page numbers wrong in a table of contents is considered ready > > for use. > > It does not "leave" them. > You do. Yes, that's exactly the attitude I get from the LaTeX tools and community. Thanks for parodying it successfully. (If you were being *serious*, then this isn't the place to get into a flame war about the user-hostility of the LaTeX software. I'm done.) -- \ "Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except | `\ for that rare story of which you happen to have first-hand | _o__) knowledge." -- Erwin Knoll | Ben Finney <be...@be...> |
From: Alan G I. <ai...@am...> - 2007-02-01 14:45:21
|
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007, Ladislav Lhotka apparently wrote: > Given that most of the cross-referencing and other > wizardry can be done by the reST writers themselves, there > is no need to use such a complex frontend system as LaTeX > certainly is. A simple set of plain TeX macros would do This is a reasonable approach when the reST defaults are acceptable, but I have never found that I can use these, and so I always need the extensive LaTeX capabilities provided by rst2latex options. Indeed, if anything I want *more* access to LaTeX rather than less. Cheers, Alan Isaac |
From: Ladislav L. <lh...@ce...> - 2007-02-01 15:31:29
|
Alan G Isaac p=ED=B9e v =C8t 01. 02. 2007 v 09:48 -0500: > This is a reasonable approach when the reST defaults are=20 > acceptable, but I have never found that I can use these, and=20 > so I always need the extensive LaTeX capabilities provided=20 > by rst2latex options. Indeed, if anything I want *more*=20 > access to LaTeX rather than less. The rst2tex options could be pretty much the same as those of rst2latex, except that rst2latex has to follow LaTeX idiosyncrasies. My point is that as much as possible document processing should be done in the reST writer and TeX can then be just a (configurable) typesetting backend. The necessary TeX macro package could be tailored to the logic of docutils rather than the other way around, and stay under control whereas LaTeX is and will remain a moving target with a lot of unneeded functionality and annoying side effects (such as three passes). Having said that, I think rst2latex still has its uses - people may just need LaTeX or want to fiddle with it. I guess though in most cases one simply wants to get a decent PDF and that's all. Cheers, Lada =20 --=20 Ladislav Lhotka, CESNET PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C |
From: Alan G I. <ai...@am...> - 2007-02-01 15:56:42
|
Ladislav Lhotka said: > I think rst2latex still has its uses - people may just > need LaTeX or want to fiddle with it. I guess though in > most cases one simply wants to get a decent PDF and that's > all. Of course a lot turns on what is meant by a "decent" PDF, and all the rst2latex options that allow leaning on LaTeX rather than relying only on the reST writer are a strong signal about the added functionality that people have needed. (I use these extensively.) But I like the idea of a plain tex writer in addition, for just the reasons you mention. Philosophically it reminds me of QaTeX http://qatex.sourceforge.net/ Cheers, Alan Isaac |
From: Ladislav L. <lh...@ce...> - 2007-02-01 16:17:43
|
Alan G Isaac p=ED=B9e v =C8t 01. 02. 2007 v 10:59 -0500: > Of course a lot turns on what is meant by a "decent" PDF,=20 > and all the rst2latex options that allow leaning on LaTeX=20 > rather than relying only on the reST writer are a strong=20 > signal about the added functionality that people have=20 > needed. (I use these extensively.) Yeah, I started with TeX on a PC-XT with 640 KB RAM in 1986, so that's where I learnt to hate LaTeX with its often unnecessary multiple passes. :-) >=20 > But I like the idea of a plain tex writer in addition, for=20 > just the reasons you mention. Philosophically it reminds me=20 > of QaTeX http://qatex.sourceforge.net/ OK, I'll try to come up with an interface between rst2tex and TeX. Cheers, Lada --=20 Ladislav Lhotka, CESNET PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C |
From: G. M. <g....@qu...> - 2007-02-02 08:22:06
|
On 1.02.07, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > Alan G Isaac pí?e v ?t 01. 02. 2007 v 09:48 -0500: > I guess though in most cases one simply wants to get a decent PDF and > that's all. ... > My point is that as much as possible document processing should be > done in the reST writer and TeX can then be just a (configurable) > typesetting backend. IMO, the rst2newlatex writer goes a lot in this direction, trying hard to keep the side-effects of LaTeX small (at the cost of readability of the *.tex source). This is one use of the (La)TeX exporter, which actually might be better served with pure TeX (if there is a "non-La" TeX wizard to write (and maintain) a TeX writer). However, is there such a thing like pdftex, can pdflatex handle non-La TeX, or will a rst2tex2pdf writer need to use dvips. > Having said that, I think rst2latex still has its uses - people may just > need LaTeX or want to fiddle with it. I think docutils should keep a true LaTeX *exporter* that is aimed at a clean LaTeX output for use cases where the *.tex file will be worked on. (or, e.g. included in a larger document written by LyX.) I see rst2latex more in this line as rst2newlatex. Günter |
From: Marc 'B. R. <ma...@ri...> - 2007-02-02 08:46:05
|
On Friday 02 February 2007 09:21, G. Milde wrote: > However, is there such a thing like pdftex, can pdflatex handle > non-La TeX, or will a rst2tex2pdf writer need to use dvips. There is:: marc@s8n:~$ pdftex This is pdfeTeX, Version 3.141592-1.21a-2.2 (Web2C 7.5.4) ** Ciao, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch =2D-=20 Debi Newberry: =E2=80=9CYou're a psychopath.=E2=80=9D Martin Blank: =E2=80=9CNo, no. Psychopaths kill for no reason. I kill for *money*. It's a *job*. That didn't come out right.=E2=80=9D -- Grosse Pointe Blank |
From: Ben F. <big...@be...> - 2007-01-30 06:06:42
|
Alan G Isaac <ai...@am...> writes: > On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Ben Finney apparently wrote: > > How can I know, automatically within the Makefile that runs > > latexpdf, when I've run it enough times? Is fifteen times enough? > > Is there any single command that I can run to get from a latex > > document to a PDF document, automatically and without "maybe you > > also need to run this as well but you'll have to check manually"? > > The contents are output to a .toc file when LaTeX is run, so you > will need to run LaTeX twice after editing your file: once to update > the .toc file, and once to include the updated .toc file. Does this apply if I'm not running LaTeX directly, but instead using 'latexpdf'? In the past -- on this forum, IIRC -- I've been advised in strong terms to use 'latexpdf' for this purpose, rather than attempting to deal with all the messy internals. How do I, in a single Makefile rule, convert LaTeX (as output by rst2latex) to a PDF? -- \ "Money is always to be found when men are to be sent to the | `\ frontiers to be destroyed: when the object is to preserve them, | _o__) it is no longer so." -- Voltaire, _Dictionnaire Philosophique_ | Ben Finney <be...@be...> |
From: Alan G I. <ai...@am...> - 2007-01-30 14:26:25
|
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Ben Finney apparently wrote: > Does this apply if I'm not running LaTeX directly Yes. You cannot use the Table of Contents information before it is produced, and it cannot be produced without processing the document. > How do I, in a single Makefile rule, convert LaTeX (as > output by rst2latex) to a PDF? On Windows I would say "use texify". http://docs.miktex.org/manual/texifying.html Presumably there is an equivalent on your platform. Cheers, Alan Isaac |
From: Ladislav L. <lh...@ce...> - 2007-02-01 08:11:09
|
Hi, Felix Wiemann p=ED=B9e v =DAt 30. 01. 2007 v 02:00 -0500: > Ben Finney wrote: >=20 > > I wrote a rant here on how much I hate using the LaTeX software, and > > then deleted it. So that's out of the way. >=20 > I would probably agree. There's just no better free typesetting=20 > software around. So we're kinda stuck with that. >=20 I beg to disagree. There is one known as "plain TeX". Given that most of the cross-referencing and other wizardry can be done by the reST writers themselves, there is no need to use such a complex frontend system as LaTeX certainly is. A simple set of plain TeX macros would do, and I have been already thinking about putting it together. Cheers, Lada --=20 Ladislav Lhotka, CESNET PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C |