From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.tex.context/47507 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Thomas A. Schmitz" Newsgroups: gmane.comp.tex.context Subject: Re: question for the xml-experts Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 09:54:47 +0100 Message-ID: References: <4C416126-1F10-4206-BD3F-9377AC7C81CC@uni-bonn.de> Reply-To: mailing list for ConTeXt users NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"; DelSp="yes" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1235034077 17708 80.91.229.12 (19 Feb 2009 09:01:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 09:01:17 +0000 (UTC) To: mailing list for ConTeXt users Original-X-From: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl Thu Feb 19 10:02:28 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gctc-ntg-context-518@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from ronja.vet.uu.nl ([131.211.172.88] helo=ronja.ntg.nl) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1La4nY-0003qZ-Cw for gctc-ntg-context-518@m.gmane.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2009 10:02:24 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id E85EE1FB8F; Thu, 19 Feb 2009 10:00:54 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from ronja.ntg.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.ntg.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 31614-04; Thu, 19 Feb 2009 10:00:54 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from ronja.vet.uu.nl (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1844D1FADB; Thu, 19 Feb 2009 09:57:08 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C97D1FB57 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2009 09:56:58 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from ronja.ntg.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.ntg.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 28600-03 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2009 09:55:56 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from filter1-ams.mf.surf.net (filter1-ams.mf.surf.net [192.87.102.69]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id F21A91FB6D for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2009 09:55:43 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from uni-bonn.de (mail.uni-bonn.de [131.220.15.113]) by filter1-ams.mf.surf.net (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id n1J8st0B016962 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2009 09:55:21 +0100 Original-Received: from [87.178.70.10] (account tschmit1@uni-bonn.de HELO [192.168.0.2]) by fe2.uni-bonn.de (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.12) with ESMTPA id 12162252 for ntg-context@ntg.nl; Thu, 19 Feb 2009 09:54:55 +0100 In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score 0, tokens from: @@RPTN) X-CanIt-Geo: ip=131.220.15.113; country=DE; region=07; city=Bonn; latitude=50.7333; longitude=7.1000; http://maps.google.com/maps?q=50.7333,7.1000&z=6 X-CanItPRO-Stream: uu:ntg-context@ntg.nl (inherits from uu:default, base:default) X-Canit-Stats-ID: 182159592 - 44c9b6690851 X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 192.87.102.69 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ntg.nl X-BeenThere: ntg-context@ntg.nl X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: mailing list for ConTeXt users List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl Errors-To: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ntg.nl Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.tex.context:47507 Archived-At: On Feb 17, 2009, at 11:07 PM, luigi scarso wrote: > (sorry x my laziness) > If I have a good xml , then mkiv is a good choice. As far I know, mkiv > ~ xslt by lpeg, so > "traditional" > xml--( xslt )-->tex--( mkiv )-->pdf > is like > xml-->( mkiv )-->pdf > Note that in the last chain one mixes xml+tex: if xml become complex, > this can end in a messy situation. > > Yes, you're right of course. I have a similar situation here: the xml produced by ooo is too messy, so I want to preprocess it to something that is easier to maintain and modify (e.g., I will, at some point, add index entries and a TOC); that's why I use xslt here. But I still produce xml which I process with mkiv. > But some documents need heavy preprocessing: > for example, I have one that come from java classes serialization, > and I need the power of python (lxml) to do a clean work . > Also, if xml changes , I 've found that lxml is more flexible than > xslt. > In this case I have > xml--( lxml )-->tex--( mkiv )-->pdf > > The fact is that python and lua are not so differents, > so I've to manage two languages > (python+lua) and tex; > with 'traditional' workflow you have to manage 3 languages > xslt,lua and tex > and subdivide responsability is not so easy as the former . Interesting. I have tried to play around with python-lxml, but am having some problems to understand it. Just to give me an idea: how would you transform this: foo to this foo with lxml? lxml seems to object to the ":" in the tag, even though it's declared in the document. Thomas ___________________________________________________________________________________ If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki! maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net archive : https://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___________________________________________________________________________________