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 |