On 5/1/06, Jason <desade_ky@...> wrote:
> I'd like the same thing myself. I've downloaded the latest RTF specs
> and was thinking of taking a weekend or two to hammer out a RTF to TeX
> converter. (I prefer plain TeX with my own macro packages over LaTex,
> but I could do either.)

I've got an RTF parser (in Python, of course!), but can't share that
code since it belongs to my employer. I'd be much more interested in
highly semantic markup than something general; that could then be
styled in interesting ways.

Non-LaTeX would still be interesting to me if the markup is semantic.
If we had a definition of the markup we wanted, we could share the
encoding labor. I expect the conversion might be substantially manual
for a sufficiently interesting markup. :-(

What I'd hope to have in the end would be a Subversion repository with
3.5 SRD as the trunk, and create branches for individual projects.
:-)

> Something aimed strictly at the SRD might not take as long as something
> more generic, but it depends a good bit on how consistent the
> formatting is from file to file. I've not looked at all the SRD docs in
> raw format to really figure it out.

There's consistency, and extractability. Not sure how much magic I
want to apply to guessing whether something is a spell name or
whatever.

> The SRD has been converted to docbook, and I'm pretty sure you could
> easily convert the docbook to TeX. I've been thinking of using the
> docbook to HTML conversion to have something more portable than RTF.

Would that be Andargor's version? Just took a look at the Docbook for
that; the tools I have don't seem to like it; the XInclude isn't
getting processed. (Using docbook2pdf on Ubuntu Linux, which claims
not to support XML anyway.)

I think DocBook would be fine for me if I had decent tools, and a
better clue about creating/modifying stylesheets, but LaTeX is what I
already know.


-Fred

--
Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fdrake at gmail.com>
"Don't let schooling interfere with your education." -- Mark Twain