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

Groups > gnu.emacs.help > #60951 > unrolled thread

Script to pdf

Back to article view | Back to gnu.emacs.help

Contents

  Script to pdf Wu Ming <wu.ming2@icloud.com > - 2024-01-04 22:56 +0000
    Re: Script to pdf Sebastian Aviña (HechoEnMexico) <sebastianavina@gmail.com> - 2024-02-17 21:26 -0800
      Re: Script to pdf Wu Ming <wu.ming2@icloud.com > - 2024-03-02 01:17 +0000
        Re: Script to pdf Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> - 2024-03-02 21:47 -0300
          Re: Script to pdf Wu Ming <wu.ming2@icloud.com > - 2024-03-04 04:16 +0000
            Re: Script to pdf Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> - 2024-03-04 14:21 -0300
          Re: Script to pdf steve g <Sgonedes1977@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 23:41 -0400
            Re: Script to pdf Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 16:27 -0700
    Re: Script to pdf steve g <Sgonedes1977@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 23:34 -0400

#60951 — Script to pdf

New to Emacs. This may be my introduction to it. 

In non-interactive mode, via bash script, I would like to perform text
replacement in a Open Document text file and then save it as PDF. As
alternative save ODT as HTML first and then perform the other steps. 

Is it possible?

I have a bash script completing the process with HTML as input. But how
LibreOffice handles the conversion from ODT is tricky. Sometimes adds
unnecessary tags. Also saving HTML to PDF requires some tuning because, as
far as I know, the format is not meant for paper publishing. Emacs may have
better options. 

Thanks for sharing. 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#60954

You could bind C-x C-s to some pandoc script and store the file in any format you like.

there is already an org-mode => pdf conversion available

https://pandoc.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60955

Sebastian Aviña (HechoEnMexico) <sebastianavina@gmail.com> wrote:
> You could bind C-x C-s to some pandoc script and store the file in any format you like.
> 
> there is already an org-mode => pdf conversion available
> 
> https://pandoc.org/
> 

Thank you. I eventually solved with soffice. Good for the next occasion.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60956

Wu Ming <wu.ming2@icloud.com > writes:

> Sebastian Aviña (HechoEnMexico) <sebastianavina@gmail.com> wrote:
>> You could bind C-x C-s to some pandoc script and store the file in any format you like.
>> 
>> there is already an org-mode => pdf conversion available
>> 
>> https://pandoc.org/
>> 
>
> Thank you. I eventually solved with soffice. Good for the next occasion.

Hey, good to see some activity here.  It seems there's us here?  This
group used to be mirrored to the mailing list, right?  I think it's not
anymore, so it's totally dead.  Why would people prefer a mailing list
over NNTP?  Because of SPAM?  I think the USENET is pretty much free of
SPAM now that Google Groups left.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60957

Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> wrote:
> Wu Ming <wu.ming2@icloud.com > writes:
> 
>> Sebastian Aviña (HechoEnMexico) <sebastianavina@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> You could bind C-x C-s to some pandoc script and store the file in any format you like.
>>> 
>>> there is already an org-mode => pdf conversion available
>>> 
>>> https://pandoc.org/
>>> 
>> 
>> Thank you. I eventually solved with soffice. Good for the next occasion.
> 
> Hey, good to see some activity here.  It seems there's us here?  This
> group used to be mirrored to the mailing list, right?  I think it's not
> anymore, so it's totally dead.  Why would people prefer a mailing list
> over NNTP?  Because of SPAM?  I think the USENET is pretty much free of
> SPAM now that Google Groups left.
> 

Emacs webpage still declares about the mirroring. But mailing list web
archive says differently. 

My short experience with USENET tells spam is not the issue. Lack of
moderation is. For me at least. Don’t know if this channel is different
though.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60960

Wu Ming <wu.ming2@icloud.com > writes:

> Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> wrote:
>> Wu Ming <wu.ming2@icloud.com > writes:
>> 
>>> Sebastian Aviña (HechoEnMexico) <sebastianavina@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> You could bind C-x C-s to some pandoc script and store the file in any format you like.
>>>> 
>>>> there is already an org-mode => pdf conversion available
>>>> 
>>>> https://pandoc.org/
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thank you. I eventually solved with soffice. Good for the next occasion.
>> 
>> Hey, good to see some activity here.  It seems there's us here?  This
>> group used to be mirrored to the mailing list, right?  I think it's not
>> anymore, so it's totally dead.  Why would people prefer a mailing list
>> over NNTP?  Because of SPAM?  I think the USENET is pretty much free of
>> SPAM now that Google Groups left.
>> 
>
> Emacs webpage still declares about the mirroring. But mailing list web
> archive says differently. 
>
> My short experience with USENET tells spam is not the issue. Lack of
> moderation is. For me at least. Don’t know if this channel is different
> though.

Are you a member of the mailing list?  Can you share this fact with
them?  Thank you!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61065

Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> writes:


> Hey, good to see some activity here.  It seems there's us here?  This
> group used to be mirrored to the mailing list, right?  I think it's not
> anymore, so it's totally dead.  Why would people prefer a mailing list
> over NNTP?  Because of SPAM?  I think the USENET is pretty much free of
> SPAM now that Google Groups left.


most internet service providers stopped providing usenet to their
customers. Now most people use Google Groups; which is a web browser
interface to usenet.

SPAM was a serious issue. now most people blog on a website. Mailing
lists are more deidcated and ``private'', less spam and fewer comments
that have no relation to the topic.

usenet is like the wild west - where everybody is equal; mailing lists
are more controlled. USEnet used to have moderators, these days they are
few and far.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61070

steve g <Sgonedes1977@gmail.com> writes:
> Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> writes:
>> Hey, good to see some activity here.  It seems there's us here?  This
>> group used to be mirrored to the mailing list, right?  I think it's not
>> anymore, so it's totally dead.  Why would people prefer a mailing list
>> over NNTP?  Because of SPAM?  I think the USENET is pretty much free of
>> SPAM now that Google Groups left.
>
> most internet service providers stopped providing usenet to their
> customers. Now most people use Google Groups; which is a web browser
> interface to usenet.

No, they don't.  Google Groups *was* an interface to Usenet, but
hasn't been for a while.

Google acquired the Deja News Usenet archive in 2001 and created the
Google Groups interface, which had a *lot* of disadvantages relative
to the usual NNTP interface we're using here.  Ironically, the search
facilities didn't work well.  (It could have been nice if Google had
provided an NNTP interface to their archives, but they never did.)

On February 22, 2024, Google Groups dropped its support for posting
or viewing new Usenet content.  Articles prior to that are still
available.

It's true that most ISPs no longer provide Usenet servers, but
there are a number of free ones.  I use eternal-september.org.
You appear to be using GigaNews, which is a paid service.

> SPAM was a serious issue. now most people blog on a website. Mailing
> lists are more deidcated and ``private'', less spam and fewer comments
> that have no relation to the topic.
>
> usenet is like the wild west - where everybody is equal; mailing lists
> are more controlled. USEnet used to have moderators, these days they are
> few and far.

*Some* Usenet groups are moderated.  Most are not, and that's
always been the case.  Posts to moderated groups are sent to the
moderator(s) for approval.  A number of moderated groups have become
inactive as the moderators have lost interest and there were no
volunteers to pick up the duties.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61064

Wu Ming <wu.ming2@icloud.com > writes:

> New to Emacs. This may be my introduction to it. 
>
> In non-interactive mode, via bash script, I would like to perform text
> replacement in a Open Document text file and then save it as PDF. As
> alternative save ODT as HTML first and then perform the other steps. 
>
> Is it possible?


File: emacs.info,  Node: PostScript,  Next: PostScript Variables,  Up: Printing

C-u ps-print-buffer-with-faces

That is Control-u followed by ps-print-buffer-with-faces. emacs will ask
the name of the file and save the current buffer as a postscript
document. going from postscript to pdf is usually not a problem. use
poppler or ghostscript.

> I have a bash script completing the process with HTML as input. But how
> LibreOffice handles the conversion from ODT is tricky. Sometimes adds
> unnecessary tags. Also saving HTML to PDF requires some tuning because, as
> far as I know, the format is not meant for paper publishing. Emacs may have
> better options. 

unfortunately on unix systems printing has been beyond difficult. I
think most people use CUPs these days. back in the day you would just
copy the postscript file to /dev/lp0, which still exists on my system.
If you need to use an HP printer then you need ghostscript.

> Thanks for sharing. 

you are welcomed.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | gnu.emacs.help

csiph-web