Re: [Gretl-users] question about gretl help/manual
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 09:25:38AM -0500, Allin Cottrell wrote:
Since the math-intensive material is not going into the plain text
help files anyway, the question arises whether we'd be better off
storing that material as TeX source. This would surely be the case
if we used the source only to produce PDF, but it's less clear-cut
if we're also producing HTML for Windows. As Jack says, there are
decent conversion paths from TeX to HTML, but it is very convenient
to be able to use Docbook XSLT to make HTML in the required format
for chm (as we currently do).
Ok, I've got the point.
Some issues we should consider:
- 1. DocBook to LaTeX conversion: there are some tools (via Perl or via XSLT),
maybe they're sub-optimal, but that's a one-shot issue we can work out.
- 2. chm files generation: if that's problematic we can drop that format and point
users to pdf, html, txt-help documentation
- 3. Re-organizing the current content, separating between:
- "technical/user-guide content" (which we would keep in XML, expunging all
extra
math)
- "reference" content (which we would convert to LaTeX)
It seems to me that 1. and 2. are not much problematic, while 3. can be a tough
job...
(BTW I think translation issues are not that relevant for the choice, I don't
see much difference between translating XML or LaTeX sources: in both cases, just
stay away from the tags/commands :-)
Cri
--
GPG/PGP Key-Id 0x943A5F0E - http://www.linux.it/~cri/cri.asc
Free software, free society - http://www.fsfeurope.org