Re: What is the best html to latex program on the market or the internet ?

Discussion in 'XML' started by tsy, Oct 27, 2007.

  1. tsy

    tsy Guest

    On Oct 27, 6:06 am, Peter Flynn <> wrote:
    > On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 08:21:29 -0700, tsy wrote:
    >> Is XSLT way easier than using a decent scripting language with a SAX
    >> library?

    >
    > Yes. XSLT *is* a decent scripting (well, transformation-to-other-formats)
    > language.

    As far as I know XSLT is very different from common scripting
    languages like Perl or Python. At least it is very verbose. Would it
    be easier on average for a randomly chosen TeX user to use XSLT than
    Perl+SAX?
    tsy, Oct 27, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Re: What is the best html to latex program on the market or the internet?

    tsy wrote:
    > As far as I know XSLT is very different from common scripting
    > languages like Perl or Python. At least it is very verbose.


    Verbose in some ways, since it uses XML syntax.

    Very terse in other ways, since it has primitives specifically intended
    for searching and manipulating XML documents.

    Just plain different, in its structure as a rule-driven functional
    language rather than a procedural language. (Which is a hard concept for
    some programmers to learn, initially.)

    "Tools for tasks." Whether XSLT is the best solution depends on exactly
    what you're trying to do. For HTML to LaTeX... well, I wouldn't do that
    path if I could avoid it, I'd use a semantic markup as the input and
    style it to both HTML and LaTeX.


    --
    () ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Joe Kesselman
    /\ Stamp out HTML e-mail! | System architexture and kinetic poetry
    Joe Kesselman, Oct 27, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. tsy

    Peter Flynn Guest

    Re: What is the best html to latex program on the market or theinternet ?

    On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 03:27:00 -0700, tsy wrote:
    > As far as I know XSLT is very different from common scripting languages
    > like Perl or Python.


    Yes. Those are general-purpose system scripting languages.
    Both have very good XML libraries to allow them to access
    XML document structures, but they are not in themselves
    XML languages.

    > At least it is very verbose.


    The XML specification says "terseness is of minimal importance".
    The syntax is designed for text documents: its use in XSLT is
    a result of the designers having chosen XML document syntax for
    that language deliberately, so that the same parser can be used
    both for the document being handled *and* for the language
    code itself.

    > Would it be easier on
    > average for a randomly chosen TeX user to use XSLT than Perl+SAX?


    I think so, if they are already going to have to get to grips with
    XML in the form of XHTML. TeX users are not always programmers, and
    I suspect they will find XML's concepts of containment, and features
    like attributes in the start-tags, familiar enough. Learning Perl is
    a major undertaking, and its syntax is notoriously abstruse.

    A few years ago I would have recommended Ominmark instead, since its
    syntax is much simpler and more "plain-English-like", but after a
    flirtation with a cost-free distribution it reverted to a commercial
    model, and now comes surrounded by a lot of extraneous impedimenta.

    ///Peter
    Peter Flynn, Oct 28, 2007
    #3
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    312
  2. Ramdas
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    279
    Ramdas
    Mar 7, 2007
  3. Replies:
    11
    Views:
    824
    Peter Flynn
    Oct 27, 2007
  4. Replies:
    6
    Views:
    321
    Peter Flynn
    Oct 27, 2007
  5. tsy
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    438
    Pavel Lepin
    Oct 30, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page