[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: New accent modifier types?
- To: "Discussion list of the IUCr Committee for the Maintenance of the CIF Standard (COMCIFS)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: New accent modifier types?
- From: Brian McMahon <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 17:07:34 +0000
- In-Reply-To: <45EEF8F5.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <45EDAB2E.email@example.com><20070307110357.GB2963@emerald.iucr.org><45EEF8F5.firstname.lastname@example.org>
Joe On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 12:40:05PM -0500, Joe Krahn wrote: > In terms of simple CIF markup, I think that a few extra accent types are > OK, but the the basic syntax should be simple. That is why I ignores > Cyrillic, Arabic, etc., because they are just too different from plain > ASCII. > > In fact, my hope is to actually simplify the syntax by converting the > ones with no backslash to a more uniform format. I think it is also a > good idea to stop using the <B> and <I> html tags. Of course, having a > means to do proper HTML as an alternative makes this more reasonable. I've now had a chance to discuss these ideas with Simon, our publcif developer. He has agreed to look at your proposal for extended textual markup and report on the practicality of implementing it within publcif. We also chatted about the use of MIME headers within text fields to allow multipart content and/or to delegate complex formatting to external handlers. The problem that we immediately run into is what the return value from the handler should be. The input to the handler is simple - it's just a string comprising the portion of the text field delegate; so you pass a chunk of TeX to a TeX handler. The TeX handler may need to wrap this in a preamble and postamble (e.g. "\end"); but what does it return to the invoking application? TeX itself will create a device-independent (.dvi) file external to the application, or it could write PostScript or PDF - again, external representations of a rendered document. What we typically need is a transformed string that can be reinserted into the output stream from the invoking application. Simon suggested that the TeX handler just return an image - a GIF, say, of the rendered page, but that won't do for all sorts of reasons. You lose the ability to embed hyperlinks, to index content, to convert to SGML/XML; and you may end up with images that are larger than the available location within the document page that you are constructing. In the case of publcif, which creates as the first stage of its output an HTML document, we shall look at tth (a TeX-to-HTML converter) as the TeX handler. However, we already know from using tth in the journal production workflow that its capabilities are limited (HTML itself has rather poor facilities for rendering maths), so our expectations are not high. This isn't an academic exercise for us. Until very recently, CIF-based articles in Acta C and E used TeX as the typesetting engine and an unofficial hack allowed embedded TeX to be integrated in the typesetting process. (If you're interested, the hack consisted of putting %T as the first non-blank characters of the text field. It would be easy to detect this and convert it to a MIME-delimited form if we do decide to go that way. The hack was rather quietly documented on page 4 of A Guide to CIF For Authors http://www.iucr.org/iucr-top/cif/doc/cifguide.pdf) There are many good reasons for us to convert from ciftex to publcif as our composition engine, but I fear that it will be a retrograde step if we lose the potential for rich markup with TeX that we previously had. Brian _______________________________________________ comcifs mailing list email@example.com http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/comcifs
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- Re: New accent modifier types? (Joe Krahn )