Almost everything (even the colophon) was originated in Asciidoc. I have used the above chain to typeset something like this ( ). Please note that even without your custom code (in xslt and latex), still the chain does a plenty of conversions in a good enough way. Then of course you need to write your latex macro, something like : \mySummary. But anyway if you find that dblatex does not have the specific convertor for your "summary" section then you can add lines of xslt to dblatex to have a special conversion for with role="summary" to something that you want in Latex. The things in dblatex are somehow complicated and XSL things are not my favorite way of doing things. DBlatex is quite a mature convertor from docbook to latex but it is based on xslt and python and its maintenance does not seem to be very active (I have a feeling that the support might end some years ahead). In the above mentioned chain, everything is asciidoc (including the roles, ids) is converted to docbook very clean and clearly (that has been the basic purpose of asciidoc, as far as I know). How can I define that? there is no internal style in asciidoc for that but I just need to to add ".summary" to the head of a block and I will see in Docbook that " ." or in HTML " and then I can take care of how to typeset and style that specific content. For example, I need to have a very specially styled part for my "summary points" section. Why we need that? because of the very specific publishing needs you may need. IMHO, the important thing in this chain or any other chain is that the fundamental strength of asciidoc, that is user defined roles (and/or costume styles modules) should be transferred downstream and the above chain could do most of this, although no so neat and easy. So, the other viable choice is Asciidoc >(asciidoctor)> DocBook >(dblatex your customization)> Latex >(xe/pdflatex your latex library )> PDF. I also consider asciidoctor-pdf rendering and its associated styling mechanism something as "good-enough" for simple publishing, but the level of customization is not what you want to publish, let's say a book, with. At the same time asciidoctor-latex introduces " extended syntax " that I am not sure if I want to break compatibility of my asciidoc documents with that (except they get (? got) included in the asciidoc format). There are many content types and many options in rendering those types. I tried it with academic documents and things are usually more complicated than its features. Actually, I think it does not even claim more. If I may put my two cents in, I think that asciidoctor-latex is still not mature enough to support more than simple publishing needs. An unhyphenated PDF would be an absolute no-go for me.Īnother - less important - question: Is there a way to influence the style of the index or the bibliography like in LaTeX? What I could not find any information about is how to get hyphenation (in German) to work. And even if I were CSS proficient I'd probably lack talent in design, so my style would probably be ugly :) Generally, the deeper I get into asciidoc-writing, the more it seems almost as complicated as using LaTeX. The number of existing styles seems to be very small and they are rather IT biased. It seems I'd have to create my own CSS stylesheet to get my desired style - which would be a major distraction from writing to me. Actually I did not write much yet, though, because I've distracted myself by collecting lots of information from the web about asciidoc(tor)'s toolchain - leaving me still confused.Ĭurrently I'm trying AsciidocFX on Windows (which seems to include Asciidoctor) and the first thing I'm noticing is how little control I have over PDF output. As a LaTeX user for over 20 years now (on and off) I started using asciidoc(tor) a week ago, and I like the idea of less distraction at writing.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |