mailing-list for TeXmacs Users

[address@hidden]

On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 07:25:27PM +0100, Yannick Patois wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 address@hidden wrote:
> > By the way, HTML is a bad choice if you plan to get a modified version
> > back. The problem is that HTML is much less semantically rich than
> > TeXmacs. I am not even sure there is a correct semantic way to export
> > bibliograph information to HTML (if you know one, please tell me).
> 
> To my knowledge, nothing better than anchor... But have a look to the
> output of a latex2html doc.

Mhh... I noticed a CITE element in the HTML4 spec. But it does not
seem to map very well to the TeXmacs/LaTeX cite semantic.

> A quite simple way to do many thing is to create a CSS with all your
> semantic, and then class="stuff", even if you dont exactly know yet how
> you want it to look.

Unfortunately things are not that simple. For one thing, CSS should
not change the inline/block semantic of HTML tags. Also the conversion
can be non-trivial for structures carrying auxilliary data like cite.
Would you use a different class for every different value of a 'cite'?

Also, the boss does not seem to want me to use CSS in exported HTML.

I would appreciate any insight in this field because the HTML
conversion issues are difficult.

-- 
David Allouche         | GNU TeXmacs -- Writing is a pleasure
Free software engineer |    http://www.texmacs.org
   http://ddaa.net     |    http://alqua.com/tmresources
   address@hidden  |    address@hidden
TeXmacs is NOT a LaTeX front-end and is unrelated to emacs.