On 11 Nov 2012, at 17:26, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:
On Nov 10, 2012, at 9:41 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote:
On 10 Nov 2012, at 21:33, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:
3. Lets discuss how we want to describe the content "in-image" for "serving on the web". Maybe with a "Markup to HTML translator" - or a "WikiStyle to HTML" like help
I want to use the pier syntax because I know that I can generate the correct latex with it for the books, and of course any kind of html and other formats.
I vote for Markdown, it is more like a defacto standard.
I prefer pier since I can convert all the book macros (and I cannot do that in markdown). I'm spending so much time writing that at least I want the result to look more than a bad documentation.
And you can convert Markdown into anything, there exit tons of tools for it.
Remember that I sent you my Zinc & Zodiac docs converted to Latex ? Were they no good ?
It depends at which level. Can you tag on word in markdown to have bold, italic, index? If I would not have written 350 pages of seaside book with pier it would be a different story but so far pier syntax is good for doing everything: html, latex, even markdown.
In Markdown, it is *italic* or _italic_ and **bold** and __bold__. Now for index entries, I don't know exactly - making an automatic index is a special post process function anyway. I think you could do something like [ReadStream][index-entry]s are objects that you can read bytes or characters from. Making a book from several independent source files is quite a job that requires custom programming. It would be very cool if we could do all that in Smalltalk, using a good Markdown parser and a cool object representation. I have nothing against Pier, but it is something that only exists in our niche world, not in the larger world out there. Sven