Menu
▾
▴
xmlunit-general
|
From: Stefan B. <bo...@ap...> - 2007-01-31 05:28:49
|
Hi, I've always liked the fact that there is a PDF guide to XMLUnit, but I don't see myself editing rtf files to adapt it to the new features. Also I'd like to put more emphasis on using the XMLUnit API instead of using XMLTestCase so I'd have to make some bigger changes and CVS/svn history of binary files is non-existant. So I'm looking for ways to create PDF (and maybe HTML) output from a text format. The obvious candidates are LaTeX and Docbook, using Apache Forrest may be an option as well. I know LaTeX really well, so it would be my personal preference. When I last tried Docbook its PDF output wasn't really pretty and my knowledge of XSL:FO was (and still is) far too limited to create better stylesheets. Any opinions? Stefan |
|
From: Jeff M. <je...@cu...> - 2007-01-31 09:53:16
|
I don't really know LaTeX, so I can't really give a balanced opinion but my preference would be for docbook. I think that generally people are fairly comfortable to XML formats and Docbook is one of the best established formats and one that's is designed for technical documents. I'd agree that the standard PDF stylesheets aren't necessarily the most asthetically pleasing and that creating FO stylesheets from scratch is a bit of a chore but getting people to edit the document source is going to be more important than a beautiful printed document. On 31/01/07, Stefan Bodewig <bo...@ap...> wrote: > Hi, > > I've always liked the fact that there is a PDF guide to XMLUnit, but I > don't see myself editing rtf files to adapt it to the new features. > Also I'd like to put more emphasis on using the XMLUnit API instead of > using XMLTestCase so I'd have to make some bigger changes and CVS/svn > history of binary files is non-existant. > > So I'm looking for ways to create PDF (and maybe HTML) output from a > text format. The obvious candidates are LaTeX and Docbook, using > Apache Forrest may be an option as well. I know LaTeX really well, so > it would be my personal preference. When I last tried Docbook its PDF > output wasn't really pretty and my knowledge of XSL:FO was (and still > is) far too limited to create better stylesheets. > > Any opinions? > > Stefan > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your > opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash > http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV > _______________________________________________ > Xmlunit-general mailing list > Xml...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlunit-general > |
|
From: Stefan B. <bo...@ap...> - 2007-02-01 05:19:40
|
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, Jeff Martin <je...@cu...> wrote: > I don't really know LaTeX, so I can't really give a balanced opinion I've converted the first two sections and a listing to LaTeX for reference <http://stefan.samaflost.de/xmlunit/>. The .tex file is plain text, lines starting with % are commented out. > but my preference would be for docbook. fair enough. Of course it is far more verbose. > I'd agree that the standard PDF stylesheets aren't necessarily the > most asthetically pleasing I haven't tried it lately, maybe they've improved. > but getting people to edit the document source is going to be more > important than a beautiful printed document. Absolutely, but I think that would be possible for LaTeX as well since it really basically is plain text. Stefan |
|
From: James A. <jam...@gm...> - 2007-02-01 10:26:42
|
Again, I don't know LaTeX, beyond having read about it in various books [1]. I would definitely lean towards DocBook, which I've used a little. What about tooling support? Editors with good XML support are fairly ubiquitous; presumably there are similar things for LaTeX available both to emacs / vi and to other editors? I'll have a look at what's currently in CVS with a view to contributing a DocBook version of some of it, and then look at the publishing chain. I have reasonable XSLT knowledge, so that shouldn't be too hard. Cheers, James [1] http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/ On 01/02/07, Stefan Bodewig <bo...@ap...> wrote: > On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, Jeff Martin <je...@cu...> wrote: > > > I don't really know LaTeX, so I can't really give a balanced opinion > > I've converted the first two sections and a listing to LaTeX for > reference <http://stefan.samaflost.de/xmlunit/>. The .tex file is > plain text, lines starting with % are commented out. > > > but my preference would be for docbook. > > fair enough. Of course it is far more verbose. > > > I'd agree that the standard PDF stylesheets aren't necessarily the > > most asthetically pleasing > > I haven't tried it lately, maybe they've improved. > > > but getting people to edit the document source is going to be more > > important than a beautiful printed document. > > Absolutely, but I think that would be possible for LaTeX as well since > it really basically is plain text. > > Stefan > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? > Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier. > Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 > _______________________________________________ > Xmlunit-general mailing list > Xml...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlunit-general > |
|
From: Stefan B. <bo...@ap...> - 2007-02-02 05:22:42
|
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, James Abley <jam...@gm...> wrote: > What about tooling support? Editors with good XML support are fairly > ubiquitous; presumably there are similar things for LaTeX available > both to emacs / vi and to other editors? Emacs has AucTex (which I've been using for about twelve years now 8-), and there even are visual editors for TeX[1], but I never tried them. While at a former job I wrote an Ant task to run LaTeX (as often as needed), I should be able to re-invent it rather quickly. Creating HTML or XSL:FO from docbook is a matter of running XSLT which is trivial using Ant. Apache FOP comes with an Ant task to create PDF (and RTF?) from FO. > I'll have a look at what's currently in CVS with a view to > contributing a DocBook version of some of it, Maybe you could just start with a section or two like I did for the LaTeX case. That way we may have a basis to compare things. Stefan Footnotes: [1] for example http://www.lyx.org/ |
|
From: James A. <jam...@gm...> - 2007-02-02 09:30:45
|
I guess we need to be explicit about what is required. My belief, although I may be wrong, is that using DocBook would give more otions about the target output format. LaTeX lets you target PS and thus PDF, but I don't know what else it can do. I've also heard that it tends to be quite tightly coupled to the presentation layer whereas DocBook gives more options; just insert a modified XSLT into the XML publishing pipeline, or modify your CSS if you're producing good semantic XHTML. Then again, do we require that sort of power here anyway? Do you have a view on that? On 02/02/07, Stefan Bodewig <bo...@ap...> wrote: > On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, James Abley <jam...@gm...> wrote: > > > What about tooling support? Editors with good XML support are fairly > > ubiquitous; presumably there are similar things for LaTeX available > > both to emacs / vi and to other editors? > > Emacs has AucTex (which I've been using for about twelve years now > 8-), and there even are visual editors for TeX[1], but I never tried > them. > > While at a former job I wrote an Ant task to run LaTeX (as often as > needed), I should be able to re-invent it rather quickly. > > Creating HTML or XSL:FO from docbook is a matter of running XSLT which > is trivial using Ant. Apache FOP comes with an Ant task to create PDF > (and RTF?) from FO. > > > I'll have a look at what's currently in CVS with a view to > > contributing a DocBook version of some of it, > > Maybe you could just start with a section or two like I did for the > LaTeX case. That way we may have a basis to compare things. That was my plan. > > Stefan > > Footnotes: > [1] for example http://www.lyx.org/ > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? > Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier. > Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 > _______________________________________________ > Xmlunit-general mailing list > Xml...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlunit-general > |
|
From: Stefan B. <bo...@ap...> - 2007-02-02 20:13:40
|
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, James Abley <jam...@gm...> wrote: > I guess we need to be explicit about what is required. My minimal requirements: * diff-friendly source format - XML or plain text (like TeX) works * create PDF and HTML from one source * should be able to format source code properly (or keep the formating) * PDF output should look acceptable > My belief, although I may be wrong, is that using DocBook would give > more otions about the target output format. LaTeX lets you target PS > and thus PDF, actually LaTeX targets DVI (which means device independent) and there are several tools for converting DVI to other formats including PS 8-) > I've also heard that it tends to be quite tightly coupled to the > presentation layer That's not my experience, but usually I don't want to tweak the output it generates anymore. In the past I've had some unpleasant problems with Docbook (maybe it was FOP's fault, not Docbook's) and I've nothing but praise for LaTeX. So I'm biased, but I could live with Docbook if nobody shares my preferences 8-) Maybe we should add * format should encourage user contributions Our users are probably more familiar with Docbook and XSLT than TeX. I'd still need to see what the current state of PDF generated by Docbook + XSLT + Apache FOP looks like. Stefan |
|
From: David C. <dc...@st...> - 2007-02-02 22:37:35
Attachments:
dcarver.vcf
|
> Our users are probably more familiar with Docbook and XSLT than TeX. > > I'd still need to see what the current state of PDF generated by > Docbook + XSLT + Apache FOP looks like. > I have no experience with DocBook, but personally, I would recommend OpenDocument as the format to use. 1. It can be created with OpenOffice or any other editor that reads and writes ODT Files. 2. It's XML Based so you can minipulate it and create it with XSLT if necessary. 3. It has built in PDF generation. 4. It's multi-platform and doesn't rely on just being in a UNIX environment. As for FOP, FOP is good (I use it all the time), but you have to stick with the XSL-FO that it supports, if you go outside of that, you don't get the good features. So, my recommendation is the OpenOffice Format, and you then have the ability to automate it to generate HTML, PDF, Word, ODT, etc. Dave |
|
From: Stefan B. <bo...@ap...> - 2007-02-02 05:23:46
|
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007, David Carver <dc...@st...> wrote: > Sorry, I can in on the middle of this conversation. Don't worry. > JavaDoc documentation works well, enough. Are we talking about a > more expanded version or something else? Yes, absolutely. We are talking about tutorial style docs. Stefan |
|
From: Stefan B. <bo...@ap...> - 2007-02-05 05:11:24
|
On Fri, 02 Feb 2007, David Carver <dc...@st...> wrote: > Stefan Bodewig wrote: >> Yes, absolutely. We are talking about tutorial style docs. >> > > If you are talking about tutorial style docs, then I suggest > sticking with an open standard that is WYSIWYG editing, and that > would be OpenDocument. Open Office already runs on Windows, Mac, and > Linux. I wonder how big a diff would look if I just changed a few words. Or how big the document would be in the first place, Also - and that may be just me - I really don't enjoy using a WYSIWYG editor at all. I hate using Word at work and so far my experience with OO has been even worse. My brain just doesn't work the way they need it to work. Stefan |
|
From: David C. <dc...@st...> - 2007-02-05 06:41:45
Attachments:
dcarver.vcf
|
Actually, I'm looking at more of a long term maintainability format. While latex and other formats allow for more technical implementation, I personally think those formats as well as XSL-FO are more suited for automated documentation generation. Word, I agree with I hate it, OO 2.1 and 2.0, personally I haven't had any problems with. Regardless, though I think either a Word or OO format allows for a greater number of people to contribute to writing the documentation instead of just relying on a narrow skill and tool set. Just my two cents. Dave |
|
From: David C. <dc...@st...> - 2007-02-01 16:51:23
Attachments:
dcarver.vcf
|
Sorry, I can in on the middle of this conversation. JavaDoc documentation works well, enough. Are we talking about a more expanded version or something else? Regardless of what format we have, at least if you want a more polished version then the final document should be represented in PDF Dave |
|
From: David C. <dc...@st...> - 2007-02-02 22:40:51
Attachments:
dcarver.vcf
|
Stefan Bodewig wrote: > On Thu, 01 Feb 2007, David Carver <dc...@st...> wrote: > > >> Sorry, I can in on the middle of this conversation. >> > > Don't worry. > > >> JavaDoc documentation works well, enough. Are we talking about a >> more expanded version or something else? >> > > Yes, absolutely. We are talking about tutorial style docs. > If you are talking about tutorial style docs, then I suggest sticking with an open standard that is WYSIWYG editing, and that would be OpenDocument. Open Office already runs on Windows, Mac, and Linux. You have the ability to for PDFS or HTML. All output is XML so if you need to automate or generate it you can easily enough with XSLT or XQuery. Dav |
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X