[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: Q) Re: DOCBOOK-APPS: Converting from DocBook/SGML to DocBook/XML
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.
Powered by eList eXpress LLC