Martin v. Löwis wrote: > Phillip J. Eby wrote: > >> I've dabbled in the guts of latex2html before; it's certainly not pretty. > > > I wouldn't look into the source of latex2html at all. Instead, I would > rewrite it from scratch, worrying only that the output stays the same > (or sufficiently similar). Being able to easily build the current docs on a Windows system would be convenient. Even a full install of Cygwin doesn't include all the tools needed to build by the current process (latex2html is the main offender - I believe it *can* be made to work with Cygwin, but it's a separate download that requires a few other tweaks, and installation of a couple more support tools) >> IMO a better long term option might be to use the Python docutils and >> migrate to reStructuredText, since there are a bevy of backends >> available for latex, PDF, HTML, etc. They would probably need more >> work before they'll be suitable to handle the entire doc generation >> process, though. > > I'm not convinced this would be a good idea. Having TeX as the primary > source allows to produce well-formatted printed documentation. A _reST to TeX converter that added the extra typesetting info might be an interesting tool. So things with simple typesetting needs can be written in _reST, while complex typesetting is still possible with all the power of TeX. (I don't see how _reST could be given the same typesetting power without losing its elegant simplicity). Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | Brisbane, Australia Email: ncoghlan at email.com | Mobile: +61 409 573 268
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4