From: P. <pi...@ir...> - 2004-10-02 01:29:18
|
Hi, people. This is my first message to `docutils', be kind with me! :-) In one shop where I have been working for a few years, container formats for various documents, as most people have each a preference. So, we end up with a mix of LaTeX, Roff, Texinfo, MS-Word or HTML, and also many flat ASCII files. Many documents are small enough to consider Roff or Texinfo, say, as overkill. We are now trying to reasonably unify most simple documents behind Docutils and ReST, and it is going surprisingly well so far: I've not seen any serious reluctance yet, and all involved people grasped ReST rather quickly. It's pretty encouraging. A few of our documents are less small, without being big, and would be good candidates also for ReST-ification. For two Texinfo small manuals, we would loose index tables at the end, and this hurts a bit. We considered a few stunts by which we would mark the original ReST text and try post-processing the generated LaTeX, say, but this would be rather kludgey. I wonder if this particular of producing indexes (or should it be "indices" in English?) need has been already discussed in the past among Docutils users or developers, and whether it is or not part of the development plans for ReST and Docutils? P.S. - Another tiny thing we saw is the difficulty of "including" together many files written independently, as title styles ought to be unified first prior to inclusion. It would be easier, for us at least, if title styles were analysed "per file" instead of globally, allowing each author of a chapter (say), to work with the greatest possible freedom. This would have to imply, of course, that each included file should be kind of self-contained, structurally, with no awkward assymetrical stretches of structures between included parts. --=20 Fran=E7ois Pinard http://pinard.progiciels-bpi.ca |
From: Aahz <aa...@py...> - 2004-10-02 13:30:38
|
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004, Fran=E7ois Pinard wrote: > > I wonder if this particular of producing indexes (or should it be > "indices" in English?) need has been already discussed in the past > among Docutils users or developers, and whether it is or not part of > the development plans for ReST and Docutils? I've done a fair bit of work in this area for my own needs, but it's far from ready for integration into the core. Take a look at the stuff in my sandbox, paying less attention to the OO stuff. --=20 Aahz (aa...@py...) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.= com/ "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." --Ralph Waldo Emerson |
From: Josef D. <dal...@vh...> - 2004-10-04 07:49:02
|
on Fri, 1 Oct 2004 21:22:04 -0400 Fran=E7ois Pinard <pi...@ir...> wrote: FP> P.S. - Another tiny thing we saw is the difficulty of "including" FP> together many files written independently, as title styles ought to be FP> unified first prior to inclusion. It would be easier, for us at least, FP> if title styles were analysed "per file" instead of globally, allowing FP> each author of a chapter (say), to work with the greatest possible FP> freedom. This would have to imply, of course, that each included FP> file should be kind of self-contained, structurally, with no awkward FP> assymetrical stretches of structures between included parts. I'm getting around this problem by using Leo as editor and generate rst (or= HTML, Latex) from the Leo source. Since Leo naturally supports hierarchy, = there is no need for heading styles: they are generated when producing an d= erived rst file. Inserting a document as a chapter or subchapter becomes as= easy as cutting and pasting one node from one document to another. Unfortunately there is no rst -> Leo translator yet, and I am afraid I do n= ot have the time to write one, although this would not be difficult as a Le= o plugin. Note also: this "natural" hierarchy thing is available with Leo's rst plugi= n - the rst2 plugin works differently. - Josef |