[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

Re: [ANN] ClothRed (HTML to Textile

Victor 'Zverok' Shepelev

4/11/2007 9:40:00 PM

From: Gary Wright [mailto:gwtmp01@mac.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 12:33 AM
>
>
>On Apr 11, 2007, at 5:26 PM, Victor "Zverok" Shepelev wrote:
>> I mean, for conversions like Markdown <=> Textile, XHTML as
>> intermediate is
>> slightly too funny.
>
>Yes, but that is because XHTML is too funny.
>
>Markdown exists to generate XHTML.
>Textile exists to generate XHTML.
>
>If you've got reverse translations also, then XHTML is *already* working
>as the intermediate. Why do you need yet another format?
>

May be you're right. Only can I say that for other "rich formats" (like PDF
or OpenOffice) generation conversions textile->pdf can be simpler than
XHTML->pdf (thus, it breaks rule for "the single intermediate format"
through chains like Markdown->XHTML->Textile->PDF). What do you think?

V.
2 Answers

Gary Wright

4/11/2007 10:01:00 PM

0


On Apr 11, 2007, at 5:40 PM, Victor "Zverok" Shepelev wrote:
> May be you're right. Only can I say that for other "rich
> formats" (like PDF
> or OpenOffice) generation conversions textile->pdf can be simpler than
> XHTML->pdf (thus, it breaks rule for "the single intermediate format"
> through chains like Markdown->XHTML->Textile->PDF). What do you think?

I think that a translator that is designed specifically for X to Y will
always do better than a translator that goes through an intermediate
language. A Russian to Spanish translation is going to be better than
a Russian to English to Spanish translation. The benefit of an
intermediate language is that you don't need n^2 translators only n.
That doesn't mean that in some special/common cases the direct
translation
might be available and might make a better choice.

Gary Wright

John Joyce

4/12/2007 12:46:00 AM

0

Valid, but not the same. Human languages leave lots of implicit
information that isn't easily machine parsed. That comparison is out.
But rich formats don't translate to formats that lack certain
capabilities.
Particularly PDF to XHTML or Markdown or anything almost.
PDF is a pretty broad format. Layouts don't translate so easily.
Adobe would love to have such a capability reliably. InDesign could
then produce layouts for print and the web. Not likely.
On Apr 12, 2007, at 7:00 AM, Gary Wright wrote:

>
> On Apr 11, 2007, at 5:40 PM, Victor "Zverok" Shepelev wrote:
>> May be you're right. Only can I say that for other "rich
>> formats" (like PDF
>> or OpenOffice) generation conversions textile->pdf can be simpler
>> than
>> XHTML->pdf (thus, it breaks rule for "the single intermediate format"
>> through chains like Markdown->XHTML->Textile->PDF). What do you
>> think?
>
> I think that a translator that is designed specifically for X to Y
> will
> always do better than a translator that goes through an intermediate
> language. A Russian to Spanish translation is going to be better than
> a Russian to English to Spanish translation. The benefit of an
> intermediate language is that you don't need n^2 translators only n.
> That doesn't mean that in some special/common cases the direct
> translation
> might be available and might make a better choice.
>
> Gary Wright
>