Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.text > #17

Re: presentational vs. structural markup

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

Ivan Shmakov:

> [Cross-posting to news:comp.text, and dropping
> news:news.misc from Followup-To:.]

What's the reason to have different Newsgroups and
Followup-To headers?  Isn't it logical to reply to the same
groups to which the article was posted?

> There's one more issue with the TeX approach, which is not
> as much of structural vs. presentational kind, as it's of
> code vs. data one.
>
> Namely, while it's possible to parse DocBook, documents in
> TeX-based markup are essentially /unparsable/.  For
> instance, while it's possible to extract all the section
> headings from a DocBook document, it's impossible to do
> so, in general, for a LaTeX one, as the LaTeX document in
> question can introduce its own commands all along the way.
> Consider, e. g.:
>
>     \let \sec=\section
>
> The same applies to *roff, and it's precisely the reason
> that various *roff "viewers" have to either rely on an
> implementation of the language (such as GNU Troff), or
> support only a particular macro package (as in the case of
> Emacs' M-x woman.)
>
> On the contrary, the software working with DocBook
> documents doesn't have to rely upon, say, the DocBook XSL
> stylesheets.

Yes, because DocBook has a fixed convention for each
structural element, while macro packages invent their own
ones.  In this sense, a document written using a macro
package, which is well-designed and properly used, is no
less parseable than DocBook.

> > Yes.  Structural mark-up is an abstraction from the
> > lower-level presentational mark-up.  For example, TeX is
> > presentational and LaTeX is strutural.
>
> Actually, LaTeX is structural, plain TeX is
> presentational, and TeX is the macro processing language
> in which both of them are implemented (as are, e. g.,
> ConTeXt and certain GNU Texinfo "conversions.")

That's what I said...

-- 
()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail 
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   - against proprietary attachments

Back to comp.text | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

presentational vs. structural markup Ivan Shmakov <oneingray@gmail.com> - 2012-05-04 21:21 +0700
  Re: presentational vs. structural markup Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2012-05-04 18:52 +0400
    Re: presentational vs. structural markup tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2012-05-04 19:54 -0400
    Followup-To: not equal to Newsgroups: Ivan Shmakov <oneingray@gmail.com> - 2012-05-05 10:17 +0700
    Re: presentational vs. structural markup Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> - 2012-05-05 20:28 -0400
      Re: presentational vs. structural markup "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2012-05-06 04:05 +0000
        Re: presentational vs. structural markup tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2012-05-06 00:57 -0400
        Re: presentational vs. structural markup Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> - 2012-05-06 17:40 -0400

csiph-web