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 |