Re: Ada Reference Manual 2012 in info format

["Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org>]

On 5/9/2012 6:17 AM, Oliver Kleinke wrote:

>
> I am writing an XML extension to the formatter. It's not finished yet
> but does already look promising. Why XML? Because it's easily
> transformable into nearly every other format (Original Source format,
> plain-text, HTML, PDF, DocBook, DITA, info, SQL inserts, you name it..)
> using XSL (I'm talking XSLT + XSL-FO). A major problem of the
> formatter/RM sources is that they only provide partial semantic
> information about the contents, that IS 1995-style. Honestly, you should
> consider converting the sources to a more appropriate format. Also, the
> way the Formatter sources are provided sucks major -- cvsweb, you have
> to click around a lot until you have a complete set of files plus some
> of the HEAD versions have been broken.
>
> Providing a modern HTML version does not exclude the possibility to
> provide a more 'compatible' version, so don't be so obstinate. :-)
>
> Cheers,
> Oliver

hi,

I do not know much about XML (other than using it to make
some Ant script to build some Java program I have).

I use Latex for all my documents, and use Latex2html to convert
to HTML and pdflatex to convert to PDF. It works pretty well.

If there are some math in the document, I think Latex is the best
choice to use. I think XML is not good for math.

Now, on a different angle, I've just read Oracle made its
latest Java language reference (Java SE7) using DocBook.

http://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jls/se7/html/jls-0-preface7.html

"This edition is the first to be written in the DocBook
format. Metadata in the XML markup forms a kind of static
type system"

Which seems to support what you are saying about XML. It seems
DocBook is XML based also.

I'd use XML, except that my documents and reports (for
school) are full of math, and Latex is the best for
that.

I like Latex, and I find it very easy to use.

Any way, just thought to mention this on the side.

--Nasser