Re: Q) Re: DOCBOOK-APPS: Converting from DocBook/SGML to DocBook/XML

[Ian Castle <bb+lists.docbook-apps@LOOKSystems.co.uk>]

Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
> 

>  > Passivetex is perhaps more "arcane" than jadetex - either way, it
> 
> I dont agree. it does not have the bizarre intermediate representation
> to fight with
> 

Sorry if I came across as being a bit harsh!

I did say *perhaps* ;-).

It is probably due to my ignorance... 

.. I don't regard TeX as a general purpose programming language... So
the idea of jade spitting out some, all be it, high level, TeX macros -
and jadetex simply expanding them, seems fairly natural.... I can look
at the output of jade and follow through the expansions of those macros
by reading the single jadetex.dtx file... Of course, this doesn't mean
that I have a grasp of the big picture of what is going on - but I can
see little bits of it and do the odd fix here and there.

Passivetex seems to me (and again I plead ignorance - I've spent a lot
more time looking at jadetex.dtx) to operate on a different scale - the
input is something that is nothing like TeX in syntax or style (fo) - so
passivetex has to do a whole lot more - and xmltex comes into play as
well... I can only begin to imagine how you can use TeX to get from XML
through TeX to DVI... from my perspective passivetex seems more complex.

So I can grasp enough of how jadetex works to do a bit of "whacking" on
it - which is hopefully all it needs... (assuming that I can live within
its broad limitations).

... But I would have to go further up the learning curve to be able to
do things with passivetex - which, I assume, needs further development,
rather than just a bit of tinkering.

Really, I guess what I meant was that as far as my being able to
maintain jadetex for my applications, it is for me somewhat less
daunting than the new territory of passivetex.


Regards,


Ian.