Semantic Markup -- RST vs. XML

I have very mixed feelings about XML's usability.

An avowed goal of the inventors of XML was "XML documents should be human-legible and reasonably clear." While I like to think that "legible" means usable, I'm feeling that legibility is really a minimal standard; I think it's a polite way of saying "viewable with any text editor."

I've got some content (my Building Skills books) that I've edited with a number of tools. As I've changed tools, I've come to really understand what semantic markup means.

Once Upon A Time

When I started -- back in '00 or '01 -- I was taking notes on Python using BBEdit and other text-editor tools. That doesn't really count.

The first drafts of the Python book were written using AppleWorks; the predecessor to Apple's iWork Pages product. Any Mac text editor is a joy to use. Except, of course, that AppleWorks semantic markup wasn't the easiest thing to use. It was little more than the visual styles with meaningful names.

Then I converted the whole thing to XML.

DocBook Semantic Markup

The DocBook XML-based markup seemed to be the best choice for what I was doing. It was reasonably technically focused, and provided a degree of structure and formality.

To convert from AppleWorks, I exported the entire thing as text and then used the LEO Outlining Editor to painstakingly -- manually -- rework it into XML.

At this point, the XML tags were a visible part of the document, and editing the document means touching the tags. Not the easiest thing to do.

I switched to XMLmind's XXE. This was nice -- in a way. I didn't have to see the XML tags, but I was heavily constrained by the clunky way they handle the XML document structure. Double-clicking a word can lead to ambiguity on which level of tag you wanted to talk about.

The XML was "invisble" but the many-layered hierarchical structure was very much in my face.

RST Semantic Markup

After becoming a heavy user of Sphinx, I realized that I might be able to simplify my life by switching from XML to RST.

There are a number of gains when moving to RST.

1. The document is simpler. It's approximately plain text, with a number of simple constraints.
2. Editing is easier because the markup is both explicit and simple.
3. The tooling is simpler. Sphinx pretty much does what I want with respect to publication.

There is just one big loss: semantic markup. DocBook documents are full of <acronym>TLA</acronym> to provide some meaningful classification behind the various words. It's relatively easy to replace these with RST's Interpreted Text Roles. The revised markup is :acronym:`TLA`.

The smaller, less relevant loss, is the inability to nest inline markup. I used nested markup to provide detailed <function><parameter>a</parameter></function> kind of descriptions. I think :code:`function(x)` is just as meaningful when it comes to analyzing and manipulating the XML with automated tools.

The Complete Set of Roles

I haven't finished the XML -> Sphinx transformation. However, I do have a list of roles that I'm working with.

Here's the list of literal conversions. Some of these have obvious Sphinx/RST replacements. Some don't. I haven't defined CSS markup styles for all of these -- but I could. Instead, I used the existing roles for presentation.

.. role:: parameter(literal)

.. role:: replaceable(literal)

.. role:: function(literal)

.. role:: exceptionname(literal)

.. role:: classname(literal)

.. role:: methodname(literal)

.. role:: varname(literal)

.. role:: envar(literal)

.. role:: filename(literal)

.. role:: code(literal)

.. role:: prompt(literal)

.. role:: userinput(literal)

.. role:: computeroutput(literal)

.. role:: guimenu(strong)

.. role:: guisubmenu(strong)

.. role:: guimenuitem(strong)

.. role:: guibutton(strong)

.. role:: guilabel(strong)

.. role:: keycap(strong)

.. role:: application(strong)

.. role:: command(strong)

.. role:: productname(strong)

.. role:: firstterm(emphasis)

.. role:: foreignphrase(emphasis)

.. role:: attribution

.. role:: abbrev

The next big step is to handle roles that are more than a simple style difference. My benchmark is the :trademark: role.

Adding A Role

Here's what you do to add semantic markup role to your document processing tool stack.

First, write a small module to define the role.

Second, update Sphinx's conf.py to name your module. It goes in the extensions list.

Here's my module to define the trademark role.

import docutils.nodes

from docutils.parsers.rst import roles




def trademark_role(role, rawtext, text, lineno, inliner,

options={}, content=[]):

"""Build text followed by inline substitution '|trade|'

"""

roles.set_classes(options)

word= docutils.nodes.Text( text, rawtext )

symbol= docutils.nodes.substitution_reference( '|trade|', 'trade', refname='trade' )

return [word,symbol], []




def setup( app ):

app.add_role( "trademark", trademark_role )

Here's the tweak I made to my conf.py

import sys, os

project=os.path.join( "")

sys.path.append("/Users/slott/Documents/Writing/NonProg2.5/source")

extensions = ['sphinx.ext.autodoc', 'sphinx.ext.ifconfig', 'docbook_roles' ]

That's it. Now I have semantic markup that produces additional text (in this case the TM symbol). I don't think there are too many more examples like this. I'm still weeks away from finishing the conversion (and validating all the code samples again.)

But I think I've preserved the semantic content of my document in a simpler, easier to use set of tools.