From: Adam J. M. <ada...@sp...> - 2012-07-13 22:33:10
|
I am not subscribed to Docutils-users. I trying to start learning Emacs to write my rst documents. So far, I am enjoying it. However, I'm struggling to compile the rst file to a PDF format. I set PDF as the primary toolset in rst.el. It appears that this uses rst2pdf, which I am familiar with using. However, it seems that the default command from Emacs does not include the required '-o <outputfile>' format. I've tried adding the '-o' option to the rst-compile-toolsets listing for PDF, but the rst-compile command then puts the option immediately after the rst2pdf command like 'rst2pdf -o <inputfile> <outputfile>'. I'm limited in my knowledge of both Emacs and Lisp (I'm much more familiar with Python), so I very well could be doing something wrong. If someone could point me in the right direction, I would appreciate it. Thank you, Adam |
From: Stefan M. <sm...@oe...> - 2012-07-17 20:29:12
|
Hi Adam! > I trying to start learning Emacs to write my rst documents. So far, I am > enjoying it. :-) > I set PDF as the primary toolset in rst.el. It appears that this uses > rst2pdf, which I am familiar with using. However, it seems that the > default command from Emacs does not include the required '-o > <outputfile>' format. I didn't wrote that code and I'm personally not (yet) using `rst2pdf`. Can you give me a (minimal) command line which should work? > I've tried adding the '-o' option to the > rst-compile-toolsets listing for PDF, but the rst-compile command then > puts the option immediately after the rst2pdf command like 'rst2pdf -o > <inputfile> <outputfile>'. `rst.el` may be simply wrong here. I never tried it. Grüße Stefan |
From: Adam J. M. <ada...@sp...> - 2012-07-17 21:01:14
|
Thank you, Stefan. I use rst2pdf pretty extensively. Generally speaking, it has worked pretty well. The following command line would be the minimum required. rst2pdf.py mydocument.txt This would produce a PDF file of the same name, with the exception of a .pdf extension. Note the the .txt extension could be anything (e.g. .rst, .rest, etc.) A more typical form, which is still simple and allows for naming of the output file is: rst2pdf.py mydocument.txt -o mydocument.pdf or rst2pdf.py mydocument.txt --output mydocument.pdf The standard rst-compile command produces something pretty close: rst2pdf.py mydocument.txt mydocument.pdf There are, as you might imagine, a dozen or more other options of a similar form, but these above are the basics. Thank you, Adam On 2012-07-17 16:28, Stefan Merten wrote: > Hi Adam! > >> I trying to start learning Emacs to write my rst documents. So far, I am >> enjoying it. > > :-) > >> I set PDF as the primary toolset in rst.el. It appears that this uses >> rst2pdf, which I am familiar with using. However, it seems that the >> default command from Emacs does not include the required '-o >> <outputfile>' format. > > I didn't wrote that code and I'm personally not (yet) using `rst2pdf`. > Can you give me a (minimal) command line which should work? > >> I've tried adding the '-o' option to the >> rst-compile-toolsets listing for PDF, but the rst-compile command then >> puts the option immediately after the rst2pdf command like 'rst2pdf -o >> <inputfile> <outputfile>'. > > `rst.el` may be simply wrong here. I never tried it. > > > Grüße > > Stefan |
From: Stefan M. <sm...@oe...> - 2012-11-11 10:55:14
|
Hi Adam and developers! Thanks for your help and sorry for the delay. 3 months (117 days) ago Adam J Morrison wrote: > The following command line would be the minimum required. > > rst2pdf.py mydocument.txt > > This would produce a PDF file of the same name, with the exception of a > .pdf extension. Note the the .txt extension could be anything (e.g. > .rst, .rest, etc.) > > > A more typical form, which is still simple and allows for naming of the > output file is: > > rst2pdf.py mydocument.txt -o mydocument.pdf > or > rst2pdf.py mydocument.txt --output mydocument.pdf > > > The standard rst-compile command produces something pretty close: > rst2pdf.py mydocument.txt mydocument.pdf [...] > On 2012-07-17 16:28, Stefan Merten wrote: >>> I set PDF as the primary toolset in rst.el. It appears that this uses >>> rst2pdf, which I am familiar with using. However, it seems that the >>> default command from Emacs does not include the required '-o >>> <outputfile>' format. >> >> I didn't wrote that code and I'm personally not (yet) using `rst2pdf`. >> Can you give me a (minimal) command line which should work? >> >>> I've tried adding the '-o' option to the >>> rst-compile-toolsets listing for PDF, but the rst-compile command then >>> puts the option immediately after the rst2pdf command like 'rst2pdf -o >>> <inputfile> <outputfile>'. >> >> `rst.el` may be simply wrong here. I never tried it. I finally installed rst2pdf from the sandbox at https://docutils.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/docutils/trunk/sandbox/rst2pdf/ I also discovered https://docutils.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/docutils/trunk/sandbox/rst2pdf-rubber/ which seems to be extremely close to the other rst2pdf tree. However, neither of the two is probably the rst2pdf you are talking about :-( . The one I tried follows the normal rst2* conventions and uses `-o` for specifying an output encoding: --output-encoding=<name[:handler]>, -o <name[:handler]> Specify the text encoding and optionally the error handler for output. Default: UTF-8:strict. It seems that the rst2pdf you are talking about is not in the Docutils SVN. @Developers: Any idea what is going on here? Grüße Stefan |
From: Stefan M. <sm...@oe...> - 2012-11-11 11:17:47
|
Hi all! 20 minutes ago Stefan Merten wrote: > I finally installed rst2pdf from the sandbox at > > https://docutils.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/docutils/trunk/sandbox/rst2pdf/ > > I also discovered > > https://docutils.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/docutils/trunk/sandbox/rst2pdf-rubber/ > > which seems to be extremely close to the other rst2pdf tree. > > However, neither of the two is probably the rst2pdf you are talking > about :-( . The one I tried follows the normal rst2* conventions and > uses `-o` for specifying an output encoding: > > --output-encoding=<name[:handler]>, -o <name[:handler]> > Specify the text encoding and optionally the error > handler for output. Default: UTF-8:strict. > > It seems that the rst2pdf you are talking about is not in the Docutils > SVN. > > @Developers: Any idea what is going on here? Ah, I think I found out. Robert Alsina seems to prefer to maintain an own project at http://rst2pdf.ralsina.com.ar/ which is not reflected in the sandbox. In this project the command line conventions do not follow the usual rst2* conventions and even collide with them. That is really, really bad. So I'm pretty much inclined to say: The behavior of `rst.el` conforms to the reStructuredText standards and thus should not be changed. Instead the external project should be fixed. A simple fix could be to make the `-o/--output` optional. Grüße Stefan |
From: Adam J. M. <ada...@sp...> - 2012-11-12 22:26:14
|
Stefan, Thank you for the message. There are key differences between the docutils sandbox rst2pdf and the rst2pdf maintained by Roberto Alsina. The docutils uses a LaTeX pass-through, while the other uses Reportlab (another python package for direct PDF generation). The Reportlab toolchain is included along with the Alsina rst2pdf in popular packages like Python(x,y) for scientific/engineering work (my industry). One isn't necessarily better than the other--they are just different. My business prefers the output and flexibility of the Reportlab approach for complex, data-driven documents. It seems like making the default commands configurable with some variables or something might be the easiest way to satisfy both tool chains. It's already true that the -o option is optional, but the rst-mode defaults to a command that has to be modified each time. For now, I've just written my own emacs function to issue the command that I need. Thanks for looking into this. Adam On 2012-11-11 06:17, Stefan Merten wrote: > Hi all! > > 20 minutes ago Stefan Merten wrote: >> I finally installed rst2pdf from the sandbox at >> >> https://docutils.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/docutils/trunk/sandbox/rst2pdf/ >> >> I also discovered >> >> https://docutils.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/docutils/trunk/sandbox/rst2pdf-rubber/ >> >> which seems to be extremely close to the other rst2pdf tree. >> >> However, neither of the two is probably the rst2pdf you are talking >> about :-( . The one I tried follows the normal rst2* conventions and >> uses `-o` for specifying an output encoding: >> >> --output-encoding=<name[:handler]>, -o<name[:handler]> >> Specify the text encoding and optionally the error >> handler for output. Default: UTF-8:strict. >> >> It seems that the rst2pdf you are talking about is not in the Docutils >> SVN. >> >> @Developers: Any idea what is going on here? > > Ah, I think I found out. Robert Alsina seems to prefer to maintain an > own project at http://rst2pdf.ralsina.com.ar/ which is not reflected > in the sandbox. In this project the command line conventions do not > follow the usual rst2* conventions and even collide with them. That is > really, really bad. > > So I'm pretty much inclined to say: The behavior of `rst.el` conforms > to the reStructuredText standards and thus should not be changed. > Instead the external project should be fixed. > > A simple fix could be to make the `-o/--output` optional. > > > Grüße > > Stefan |
From: Guenter M. <mi...@us...> - 2012-11-11 20:36:29
|
On 2012-11-11, Stefan Merten wrote: > 20 minutes ago Stefan Merten wrote: >> It seems that the rst2pdf you are talking about is not in the Docutils >> SVN. >> @Developers: Any idea what is going on here? See http://docutils.sourceforge.net/docs/user/links.html#pdf Günter |