From: Matt D. <mat...@ya...> - 2007-04-27 14:08:48
|
I recently started using rst2latex for serious work. Using it in conjunction with some BibTeX-related hacks that I've cooked up for my own personal requirements, I'm pleased with the results, but I have some questions. I apologize in advance if the questions reflect my ignorance of LaTeX itself--I'm still relatively new to the system. First, why does rst2latex make so many assumptions about the format of my document and include 61 lines of code in the preamble? I end up having to remove/modify several lines if I want to, for example, deactivate hyperlinking of sections for printing (can't seem to override it with my own stylesheet). By contrast, consider what LyX produces upon exporting to LaTex:: \documentclass[english]{article} \usepackage[T1]{fontenc} \usepackage[latin1]{inputenc} \makeatletter \usepackage{babel} \makeatother \begin{document} This is my document text. \end{document} Nothing else. Wouldn't it make more sense to not provide so many lines in the preamble and let the user define them in his own stylesheet or header file? The ``--stylesheet`` option seems only to add, rather than replace Second: rst2latex extracts the title, author, date, abstract, etc. from the field list at the top of the document, but in the resulting LaTeX document, that information ends up in seemingly odd places. For example, rather than sticking the abstract between ``\begin{abstract}`` and ``\end{abstract}``, it ends up stuck under a heading `` \subsubsection*{~\hfill Abstract\hfill ~}``. Likewise, the `` \author{}`` and ``\date{}`` commands end up empty, but the information is included in the body like so:: \begin{center} \begin{tabularx}{\docinfowidth}{lX} \textbf{Author}: & Matt Dorn \\ \textbf{Date}: & 2007-02-28 \\ \end{tabularx} \end{center} which seems needlessly complicated. In my own work I end up having to delete this code. Any explanations or guidance is appreciated. Thanks, Matt |
From: <gr...@us...> - 2007-04-27 19:34:55
|
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007, Matt Dorn wrote: > I recently started using rst2latex for serious work. Using it in > conjunction with some BibTeX-related hacks that I've cooked up for my > own personal requirements, I'm pleased with the results, but I have some > questions. I apologize in advance if the questions reflect my ignorance > of LaTeX itself--I'm still relatively new to the system. > > First, why does rst2latex make so many assumptions about the format of > my document and include 61 lines of code in the preamble? I end up > having to remove/modify several lines if I want to, for example, > deactivate hyperlinking of sections for printing (can't seem to override > it with my own stylesheet). which problem does hyperlinking make in printouts ? > By contrast, consider what LyX produces upon exporting to LaTex:: > > \documentclass[english]{article} > \usepackage[T1]{fontenc} > \usepackage[latin1]{inputenc} > > \makeatletter > \usepackage{babel} > \makeatother > \begin{document} > This is my document text. > \end{document} > > Nothing else. Wouldn't it make more sense to not provide so many lines > in the preamble and let the user define them in his own stylesheet or > header file? The ``--stylesheet`` option seems only to add, rather than > replace no it tries to give th eoption to override some of the settings made before. and i presume, the common use of rst2latex is just output a pdf without LaTeX wizardry (trimming the head might require to go over the document twice to know what is required, and the this still would fail for inlcuded documents or raw text except we parse the latex files) > Second: rst2latex extracts the title, author, date, abstract, etc. from > the field list at the top of the document, but in the resulting LaTeX > document, that information ends up in seemingly odd places. For > example, rather than sticking the abstract between ``\begin{abstract}`` > and ``\end{abstract}``, it ends up stuck under a heading `` > \subsubsection*{~\hfill Abstract\hfill ~}``. Likewise, the `` > \author{}`` and ``\date{}`` commands end up empty, but the information > is included in the body like so:: > > \begin{center} > \begin{tabularx}{\docinfowidth}{lX} > \textbf{Author}: & > Matt Dorn \\ > \textbf{Date}: & > 2007-02-28 \\ > \end{tabularx} > \end{center} > > which seems needlessly complicated. In my own work I end up having to > delete this code. > > Any explanations or guidance is appreciated. rst offers more docinfo than LaTeX so which options do you see to handle them ? * drop anything latex doesnt know * write additional ones somewhere else * misuse latex docinfo * make up your own did you read rst2latex --help and maybe http://docutils.sourceforge.net/docs/user/latex.html cheers -- |
From: G. M. <mi...@us...> - 2007-04-30 08:58:50
|
On 27.04.07, gr...@us... wrote: > On Fri, 27 Apr 2007, Matt Dorn wrote: > > First, why does rst2latex make so many assumptions about the format of > > my document and include 61 lines of code in the preamble? Most of them include packages and define commands that are needed to typeset special reST objects. Unfortunately, these definitions are here also, if the reST object in question is not present in the document. > > By contrast, consider what LyX produces upon exporting to LaTex:: ... Yes, LyX became a lot better here over the years. (I remember the days when every LyX-produced latex docuement contained a \newcommand{LyX}...) AFAIK, LyX * keeps a list of what code an object needs in the preamble (there is, e.g., a keyword for this in the layout file syntax). * during the latex export, for every object it checkes this list and (if not already done) adds the preamble code to the preamble. > > Wouldn't it make more sense to not provide so many lines in the > > preamble and let the user define them in his own stylesheet or header > > file? The ``--stylesheet`` option seems only to add, rather than > > replace > no it tries to give the option to override some of the settings made > before. However, overriding or un-defining something is more complicated then leaving out the definition. Furthermore, some things (like loading a package) cannot be easily "undone". I wonder, whether the latex writer could adapt the approach of the html writer: * provide a standard "stylesheet" with - default settings and \usepackage commands - code for rst-specific commands that ensures that any genreated document will convert error-free This stylesheet can be either inserted in the output document or "linked" with \include * the --stylesheet option will *replace* this standard stylesheet with the user supplied one. It is the responsibility of the user to ensure that all needed commands exist, either by including the standard stylesheet in their own or by replicating the command definitions. Pro: + Better consistency of docutils writers: similar working of html and latex writer reduces surprise for users switching form html to latex (and vice versa). + easier overriding of standard settings; smaller, cleaner output documents. Con: - A missing LaTeX command prevents the latex-pdf conversion, while a missing css definition will only impair the look of the html document. - A standard stylesheet should include *all* needed command definitions, not only the ones needed in the actual document. I.e. we should decide whether to implement a context-sensitive preamble or a "replacable" standard stylesheet. (Maybe a combination works as well?) > and i presume, the common use of rst2latex is just output a pdf > without LaTeX wizardry If I remember right, there was some agreement that (in opposition to rst2newlatex), rst2latex is a good candidate for an "export" tool, producing a clean, readable latex document that could be postprocessed, manually fine-tuned or sent to someone else for further working on. > (trimming the head might require to go over the document twice to know > what is required, and the this still would fail for inlcuded documents > or raw text except we parse the latex files) I suppose it could work "Lyx-like" for things like ``\newlength{\admonitionwidth}`` or ``\newenvironment{optionlist}[1]`` that are only needed if there is an admonition or optionlist in the document -- which we know by looking at the doctree. IMO, we would not need to care about included raw input. > > Second: rst2latex extracts the title, author, date, abstract, etc. from > > the field list at the top of the document, but in the resulting LaTeX > > document, that information ends up in seemingly odd places. ... > rst offers more docinfo than LaTeX so which options do you see to handle > them ? > * drop anything latex doesnt know Not as default. Maybe put in a comment (as an option). > * write additional ones somewhere else e.g. in the tabularx as presently. > * make up your own Not too bad idea, as this could be customised in a stylesheet. IMO, there are 2 different "use case classes": * I know how it looks in html and want a nice printout or pdf, -> The "Bibliographic Fields" should be rendered as a field list on the place of its occurence. (Someone more familiar with LaTeX than with rst will call this "odd places") * I want to use rst as a front end to latex, so I need a way to define \date or the "abstact" environment in rst. -> The "Bibliographic Fields" should translate to a matching latex construct (define commands or environments for the missing). (Someone more familar with html and rst will call this "odd places".) Looks like one more latex writer setting (and|or command line option) to me. Thanks to Engelbert Grubert for his work on the latex writer and for the good documentation at http://docutils.sf.net/docs/user/latex.html that explains not only the working but also the rationale behind many design decisions. Günter |
From: <gr...@us...> - 2007-04-30 11:54:53
|
hi now what should i do a) no unnecessary packages (blind guess 10 to 20 lines less) b) everything into the default external stylesheet and embedd it to ease copying. c) bibliographic fields ... what is the real problem ? is there any or is this bikeshedding, i would have some more interesting ones (in docutils) especially a) needs a lot of help (if i try to strip the usepackage lines everyone should run all their documents through it. cheers On Mon, 30 Apr 2007, G. Milde wrote: > On 27.04.07, gr...@us... wrote: >> On Fri, 27 Apr 2007, Matt Dorn wrote: > >>> First, why does rst2latex make so many assumptions about the format of >>> my document and include 61 lines of code in the preamble? > > Most of them include packages and define commands that are needed to > typeset special reST objects. Unfortunately, these definitions are here > also, if the reST object in question is not present in the document. > >>> By contrast, consider what LyX produces upon exporting to LaTex:: > ... > > Yes, LyX became a lot better here over the years. (I remember the days > when every LyX-produced latex docuement contained a \newcommand{LyX}...) > > AFAIK, LyX > > * keeps a list of what code an object needs in the preamble > (there is, e.g., a keyword for this in the layout file syntax). > > * during the latex export, for every object it checkes this list and (if > not already done) adds the preamble code to the preamble. > >>> Wouldn't it make more sense to not provide so many lines in the >>> preamble and let the user define them in his own stylesheet or header >>> file? The ``--stylesheet`` option seems only to add, rather than >>> replace > >> no it tries to give the option to override some of the settings made >> before. > > However, overriding or un-defining something is more complicated then > leaving out the definition. Furthermore, some things (like loading a > package) cannot be easily "undone". > > I wonder, whether the latex writer could adapt the approach of the html > writer: > > * provide a standard "stylesheet" with > > - default settings and \usepackage commands > - code for rst-specific commands > > that ensures that any genreated document will convert error-free > > This stylesheet can be either inserted in the output document or > "linked" with \include > > * the --stylesheet option will *replace* this standard stylesheet with > the user supplied one. It is the responsibility of the user to ensure > that all needed commands exist, either by including the standard > stylesheet in their own or by replicating the command definitions. > > > Pro: > > + Better consistency of docutils writers: > similar working of html and latex writer reduces surprise for users > switching form html to latex (and vice versa). > > + easier overriding of standard settings; > smaller, cleaner output documents. > > Con: > > - A missing LaTeX command prevents the latex-pdf conversion, while a > missing css definition will only impair the look of the html document. > > - A standard stylesheet should include *all* needed command definitions, > not only the ones needed in the actual document. > > I.e. we should decide whether to implement a context-sensitive preamble > or a "replacable" standard stylesheet. (Maybe a combination works as > well?) > > >> and i presume, the common use of rst2latex is just output a pdf >> without LaTeX wizardry > > If I remember right, there was some agreement that (in opposition to > rst2newlatex), rst2latex is a good candidate for an "export" tool, > producing a clean, readable latex document that could be postprocessed, > manually fine-tuned or sent to someone else for further working on. > >> (trimming the head might require to go over the document twice to know >> what is required, and the this still would fail for inlcuded documents >> or raw text except we parse the latex files) > > I suppose it could work "Lyx-like" for things like > ``\newlength{\admonitionwidth}`` or ``\newenvironment{optionlist}[1]`` > that are only needed if there is an admonition or optionlist in the > document -- which we know by looking at the doctree. IMO, we would not > need to care about included raw input. > > >>> Second: rst2latex extracts the title, author, date, abstract, etc. from >>> the field list at the top of the document, but in the resulting LaTeX >>> document, that information ends up in seemingly odd places. > ... >> rst offers more docinfo than LaTeX so which options do you see to handle >> them ? > >> * drop anything latex doesnt know > > Not as default. Maybe put in a comment (as an option). > >> * write additional ones somewhere else > > e.g. in the tabularx as presently. > >> * make up your own > > Not too bad idea, as this could be customised in a stylesheet. > > > IMO, there are 2 different "use case classes": > > * I know how it looks in html and want a nice printout or pdf, > > -> The "Bibliographic Fields" should be rendered as a field list > on the place of its occurence. > > (Someone more familiar with LaTeX than with rst will call this > "odd places") > > * I want to use rst as a front end to latex, so I need a way to define > \date or the "abstact" environment in rst. > > -> The "Bibliographic Fields" should translate to a matching latex > construct (define commands or environments for the missing). > > (Someone more familar with html and rst will call this "odd places".) > > Looks like one more latex writer setting (and|or command line option) to = me. > > > Thanks to Engelbert Grubert for his work on the latex writer and for the > good documentation at http://docutils.sf.net/docs/user/latex.html that > explains not only the working but also the rationale behind many design > decisions. > > G=FCnter > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express > Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take > control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. > http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ > _______________________________________________ > Docutils-users mailing list > Doc...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/docutils-users > > Please use "Reply All" to reply to the list. > --=20 |
From: Alan I. <ai...@am...> - 2007-04-30 13:44:58
|
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007, T) gr...@us... wrote: > now what should i do > a) no unnecessary packages (blind guess 10 to 20 lines less) > b) everything into the default external stylesheet and > embedd it to ease copying. > c) bibliographic fields ... I like (b) with the default to embed in the document but an option to embed an alternative style sheet. As for (a), I think it really is bikeshedding. At which point a little sed will do. On a different note, it would be nice to be able to choose the environment for literal inclusions. (I usually want the listings package.) Cheers, Alan Isaac |
From: G. M. <mi...@us...> - 2007-04-30 16:16:42
|
Dear Engelbert, thanks for you fast reply. On 30.04.07, gr...@us... wrote: > now what should i do I can only speak for myself, other users might have other problems/preferences. Therefore my proposal nr 1 is to wait for a consensus before implementing stuff. > a) no unnecessary packages (blind guess 10 to 20 lines less) ... and no unnecessary settings and definitions (up to 45 lines less) + faster latex run. But: hard to implement and clashing with proposal b) > b) everything into the default external stylesheet and ... handle stylesheets similar to the html writer: two configuration settings: stylesheet: stylesheet URL, used verbatim. (Setting already defined for the LaTeX Writer.) Default: <some/default/path>/rst2latex.sty Options: --stylesheet. embed_stylesheet: Embed the stylesheet in the output file. The stylesheet file must be accessible during processing. Default: enabled. Options: --embed-stylesheet, --link-stylesheet. The file pointed to by the stylesheet option will be inserted (embed_stylesheet = true) or linked to (with \include or \usepackage?) (embed_stylesheet = false) in the preamble. > c) bibliographic fields ... This can be handled independently. My main intention was to show that the current implementation does not behave "odd" and trying to start a constructive discussion. > what is the real problem? LaTex files generated by the latex writer are in some aspects sub-optimal for post-processing or manual viewing/editing (by the author or some co-worker/editor/supervisor...). I acknowledge the difficulties in making a generated file both, working and "nice looking". I tried to specify 3 points where IMO, an improvement is possible. a) reducing the amount of auxiliary definitions in the preamble In the light of effort vs. gain, this has less importance for me. b) easier customizability and consistency with the html writer by using the user-specified stylesheet *instead of* as opposed to *in addition to* the default preamble definitions. This is IMO more important than a) and c) and should be quite easy to implement. (The more tedious work will be updating the documentation.) c) configurable end-location of bibliographic fields Problem: what should I write in the rst-document to get in LaTeX e.g. \date{<content>} or \begin{abstract} <content> \end{abstact} Proposal: use the bibliographic field information already defined as "special" in rst. Problem: what should become of bibliographic fields where there is no LaTeX equivalent? Thanks again Günter |
From: <gr...@us...> - 2007-04-30 19:39:47
|
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007, G. Milde wrote: >> what is the real problem? > > LaTex files generated by the latex writer are in some aspects sub-optimal > for post-processing or manual viewing/editing (by the author or some > co-worker/editor/supervisor...). I acknowledge the difficulties in making > a generated file both, working and "nice looking". docutils goes way beyond latexs limits (nesting lists with differing counters and bullets, 33 section levels, ...) maybe a real-latex option would be necessary, so no custom lists are used but simple enumerations ? > c) configurable end-location of bibliographic fields > > Problem: what should I write in the rst-document to get in LaTeX e.g. > > \date{<content>} > > or > > \begin{abstract} > <content> > \end{abstact} > > Proposal: use the bibliographic field information already defined > as "special" in rst. --use-latex-docinfo Let LaTeX print author and date, do not show it in docutils document info. --use-latex-abstract Use LaTeX abstract environment for the documents abstract.Per default the abstract is an unnumbered section. ?? > Problem: what should become of bibliographic fields where there is > no LaTeX equivalent? this shouldnt happen if it is only used to generate editable latex, shouldnt it ? -- |
From: Matt D. <mat...@ya...> - 2007-05-02 13:40:17
|
Thanks Engelbert, for your responsiveness and for your work on rst2latex, and thanks Günter for summarizing my concerns and going into far greater depth with them than I could have. I agree that there are two basic use cases for rst2html: one to get a nicely formatted document for printing in which the commands in the LaTeX document itself don't matter much as long as the output, and the other to get a "properly" formatted LaTeX document. This second use case seems to be the one that is not properly supported at present. So I support the ideas suggested by Günter to deal with this: *replacement* using a specified stylesheet rather than appending. What I'm not clear on is what's being proposed for "c) configurable end-location of bibliographic fields" which I also think is quite important to getting a "properly" formatted LaTeX doc. Basically my sense is that bibliographic fields supported by reST should be mapped to their closest LaTeX equivalents (see Günter's examples below), but I'm not clear as to the work involved, and whether the payoff merits the effort. Matt |
From: G. M. <mi...@us...> - 2007-05-02 14:33:05
|
On 2.05.07, Matt Dorn wrote: > What I'm not clear on is what's being proposed for "c) configurable > end-location of bibliographic fields" which I also think is quite > important to getting a "properly" formatted LaTeX doc. Basically my > sense is that bibliographic fields supported by reST should be mapped > to their closest LaTeX equivalents (see Günter's examples below), but > I'm not clear as to the work involved, and whether the payoff merits > the effort. Did you ever try ``rst2latex --help``? There is the interesting part LaTeX-Specific Options ---------------------- which contains a lot of options to use if you want to "export" to latex, amongst them: --use-latex-footnotes Use LaTeX footnotes. LaTeX supports only numbered footnotes (does it?). Default: no, uses figures. --use-latex-citations Use LaTeX citations. Default: no, uses figures which might get mixed with images. --use-latex-toc Table of contents by docutils (default) or latex. Latex (writer) supports only one ToC per document, but docutils does not write pagenumbers. --use-latex-docinfo Let LaTeX print author and date, do not show it in docutils document info. --use-verbatim-when-possible When possible, use verbatim for literal-blocks. Default is to always use the mbox environment. So it is already here (in rst2latex (Docutils 0.4.1 [repository]), the SVN version might have even more). Maybe a bit "unhandy" to use all of them on the command line. * You may use a configuration file to set defaults. (Do all of the options have configuration settings? Some of them are not listed in http://docutils/docs/user/config.html.) * Would it help to have a generic --export or --use-latex-constructs or --clean-latex option? Or, maybe a different writer or front-end for the "export" with use-latex-* as default? I am sure that specific suggestions for more mappings of bibliographic fields or other "use-latex-*" options will find an open ear. Thanks Guenter |
From: Stefan R. <lis...@st...> - 2007-05-02 18:51:37
|
on 02.05.2007 16:32 G. Milde said the following: > On 2.05.07, Matt Dorn wrote: > >> What I'm not clear on is what's being proposed for "c) configurable >> end-location of bibliographic fields" which I also think is quite >> important to getting a "properly" formatted LaTeX doc. Basically my >> sense is that bibliographic fields supported by reST should be mapped >> to their closest LaTeX equivalents (see Günter's examples below), but >> I'm not clear as to the work involved, and whether the payoff merits >> the effort. <snip> > * You may use a configuration file to set defaults. > (Do all of the options have configuration settings? Some of them are not > listed in http://docutils/docs/user/config.html.) > > * Would it help to have a generic --export or --use-latex-constructs or > --clean-latex option? > > Or, maybe a different writer or front-end for the "export" with > use-latex-* as default? > > I am sure that specific suggestions for more mappings of bibliographic > fields or other "use-latex-*" options will find an open ear. FWIW, I thought that there is room for a third latex writer and wrote one (not ready yet though). latex is such a big grown system that you cannot support all possible use cases at the same time. Currently there is: newlatex "make sure the final output looks right and supports all rst features, .tex is only an intermediate file" latex2e "support all rst features, .tex should be editable, but if necessary deviate from latex idioms" I have a third writer here: "latexclass", the idea is to support a specific latex use, dropping the generality of the other two writers. I did not post about it yet because it's ugly and supports only one such class/use case: writing a paper for the llncs class (for submissions to the lecture notes in computer science series of the publisher Springer). It's implemented as a subclass of the latex2e writer, that - removes the --use-latex-* options (they are on by default), - translates bibliographic fields that match special commands of the llncs style (\institute{}, \thanks{}, author, authorrunning, tocauthor, date, titlerunning, ...) and discards the rest (unless --keep-unknown-docinfo) - will ;-) provide an option to select among the citation styles accepted by Springer - removes the use of latex packages that conflict with the class (e.g. hyperref cannot be used with llncs) - removes empty headings from the output (it is sometimes necessary to go from \section to \subsubsection in latex...) - will generally remove features or complain if something does not comply with the targetted use (possibly sacrificing some of the expressiveness of rst). That's as far as I got while writing the last paper ;-) cheers, stefan |
From: Matt D. <mat...@ya...> - 2007-05-02 19:50:44
|
Stefan Rank <list-ener <at> strank.info> writes: > FWIW, I thought that there is room for a third latex writer and wrote > one (not ready yet though). > latex is such a big grown system that you cannot support all possible > use cases at the same time. Stefan, This sounds similar to something I'm working on. See my response to one of Alan Issac's comments in this thread: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.text.docutils.user/3834 If you think there could be some points of collaboration, feel free to drop me a line. Matt |
From: Alan I. <ai...@am...> - 2007-04-30 13:44:56
|
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007, "G. Milde" wrote: > If I remember right, there was some agreement that (in > opposition to rst2newlatex), rst2latex is a good candidate > for an "export" tool, producing a clean, readable latex > document that could be postprocessed, manually fine-tuned > or sent to someone else for further working on. Yes! Cheers, Alan Isaac |
From: Stuart R. <st...@za...> - 2007-05-08 05:27:36
|
I've seen it said a few different places that you can convert from rst to rtf using DocUtils. Is this true? If so, where can I find documentation showing how? Thanks in advance. |
From: Andreas R. <reu...@we...> - 2007-05-11 00:30:00
|
On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 10:24:23PM -0700, Stuart Robinson wrote: > I've seen it said a few different places that you can convert from rst to > rtf using DocUtils. Is this true? If so, where can I find documentation > showing how? Thanks in advance. I am not aware of anyone producing rtf from rst, but you might want to have a look at the various sandbox projects and find out yourself if anyone has started such a rst2rtf writer. You can of course program your own rst2rtf writer, but this requires some knowledge of rtf. If I had to do this I would rather not want to struggle with rtf and instead rely on some tool producing rtf already. I can think of two possible ways of doing so, each on involves intermediate steps: with rst2xml applying an using e. g. fop xsl-fo stylesheet * rst ------------> xml ----------------> fo -------------> rtf fop can combine the two steps xml-->fo-->rtf as a single step, however last time I checked the quality of rtf output was poor in fop (fop's strength is to produce quality pdf), you might have to ask on the fop mailing list using Dave's rst2odt.py openoffice built in conversion * rst -----------------------> odt -----------------------------> rtf There might be other possibilities, e. g. I am not sure if there is some tex --> rtf conversion. Hope this helps. -Andreas > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express > Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take > control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. > http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ > _______________________________________________ > Docutils-users mailing list > Doc...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/docutils-users > > Please use "Reply All" to reply to the list. > > > !DSPAM:4640945455361659118095! |
From: Alan G I. <ai...@am...> - 2007-04-28 00:13:58
|
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007, Matt Dorn apparently wrote: > I recently started using rst2latex for serious work. > Using it in conjunction with some BibTeX-related hacks > that I've cooked up for my own personal requirements Can you please be specific about these? (If they have any possibility of general interest.) Thank you, Alan Isaac |
From: Matt D. <mat...@ya...> - 2007-05-02 14:27:41
|
Alan G Isaac <aisaac <at> american.edu> writes: > > Using it in conjunction with some BibTeX-related hacks > Can you please be specific about these? > (If they have any possibility of general interest.) Essentially what I'm working on is a system that handles citation references with page numbers and optional footnotes to accompany any citation. The idea is that before processing any reST document the user can select the desired citation style (e.g., footnote with bibliographic information, parenthetical citations with year and/or page number.) Selecting the style would also be connected with a BibTeX style, which would determine which LaTeX commands the citations are processed with. As an example, consider the following reST-ish excerpt: Code is law. [Lessig2006]_ [p. 26] Let's say the user is a law scholar, and they want to use footnotes for references (preferably in accordance with the BibTeX "Jurabib" package, if they're familiar with LaTeX). Choosing this style would produce the following LaTeX:: Code is law.\footcite[26]{Lessig2006} and you end up with a footnote containing bibliographic information extracted from your BibTeX database. But if the user were, say, a sociologist, and wanted to use the Chicago Manual of Style author-date system for parenthetical citations (probably using some sort of Natbib-based BibTeX style), the *same reST code* would produce the following:: Code is law.\citep[26]{Lessig2006} and you end up with the following in your document: Code is law (Lessig 2006, 26). (Note that probably not all style possibilities are just a matter of changing the LaTeX command name as in this example.) I do a fair amount of preprocessing to get the reST-ish document into reST before passing it to rst2latex, and am especially dependent on the ``raw:: latex`` directive. I currently don't see how what I'm doing can be accommodated by docutils/reST, and I need this system working basically right now as I'm working on a social sciences master's thesis. If anything I end up doing can be fed back into docutils, obviously I will do anything I can to facilitate it. My vision is to make this system available via a Web service to interested academics (the user would upload their reST(-ish) document plus their BibTeX database and the system would process the LaTeX doc on the server side, as well as return a PDF). Incidentally, I also intend to use bibstuff to produce an accompanying HTML version of the final document. The system of course will be free software, and I'll post any announcement about its availability here. I would love to get any input from you in particular, so I may contact you beforehand offline. Matt |
From: Alan G I. <ai...@am...> - 2007-05-02 14:57:59
|
On Wed, 2 May 2007, (UTC) Matt Dorn apparently wrote: > Code is law. [Lessig2006]_ [p. 26] > Code is law.\footcite[26]{Lessig2006} > Code is law.\citep[26]{Lessig2006} > I currently don't see how what I'm doing can be > accommodated by docutils/reST, I agree that I cannot see how reST citations are going to be able to do what many users need unless they can be paramaterized. I believe the developers are not currently sympathetic to meeting this need in reST. Your example poses some additional difficulties as well. As for parameterization, we would need an unambiguous syntax just to get started. I think I'd like to see every citation associated with a (possibly empty) dictionary. For example: [Lessig2006{p:26}]_. If I understood correctly, at one point David was open to the idea of a citation directive that would specify substitution text, which would mean reST would not even have to know anything about such parameters. In the long run, however, I hope reST will build in real citation support. Cheers, Alan Isaac |
From: Matt D. <mat...@ya...> - 2007-05-02 19:43:55
|
G. Milde <milde <at> users.berlios.de> writes: > Did you ever try ``rst2latex --help``? [...] > --use-latex-docinfo Let LaTeX print author and date, do not show it in > docutils document info. Due to my overreliance on the default Gmane view (which apparently doesn't show messages deeper than a certain thread level), I missed grubert's response to this. As he pointed out, this option plus ``--use-latex-abstract`` solves the problem for now, though I like the ``--clean-latex`` idea you propose to universally take care of this stuff. Matt |