hgbook on bitbucket; was: hgbook is broken?

Johannes Stezenbach js at sig21.net
Wed Feb 11 17:27:53 CST 2009


On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 11:45:54AM -0800, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 6:32 AM, Romain Pelisse <belaran at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > IMO, I definitly understand the needs to move convert hgbook to DocBook,
> > but it sounds to me less important than actually "feeding" the book (which
> > is already big, but i'm pretty sure there still margin for improvements).
> 
> Doing the conversion is a prerequisite to further work on the book, because
> recent versions of tex4ht are even more thoroughly broken than before, and I
> have been unable to publish revisions for months due to tex4ht outputting
> garbage.

Not that I have any practical experience with it so far,
but anyway +1 to Marcin's reStructuredText suggestion. It certainly
looks like reST is much easier to write in vim than DocBook.
And e.g. the Python documentation done with Sphinx looks
very good in both HTML and PDF. And if all else fails you
can convert reST to DocBook using JRst or pandoc.

http://sphinx.pocoo.org/
http://docutils.sourceforge.net/
http://jrst.labs.libre-entreprise.org/jrst/
http://johnmacfarlane.net/pandoc/

And there's seems to be a LaTeX to reST converter:

http://svn.python.org/view/doctools/converter/
(pandoc can do it, too, maybe)

I think DocBook only works if you have a good XML editor,
otherwise it's a pain to work with.


Johannes


More information about the Mercurial mailing list