I converted to DocBook XML markup. The conversion was arduous, but well worth it. I got better semantic markup. I used the DocBook XSL tools to convert to HTML both as a single document, and a chunked presentation. It worked out pretty well.
Two things don't work out well. First, the FOP processing is shaky. The books are big, and rather complex, with a fair number of embedded fonts. I have been unable to get the embedded fonts to work correctly with FOP.
The second thing that doesn't work out well is the language-specific markup. DocBook is biased toward C. There aren't enough tags for Python markup (module and library tags are missing, for example) and the syntax-oriented statement, class and function markup is all over the map in DocBook.
Objectives
My goal is to have the books in four formats: XML, single HTML file, chunked HTML and PDF. Of these, the single HTML is the least appealing. The chunked HTML is a great carrier for Adsense ads. The PDF is what I should be selling.
I don't mind writing in XML. Using XMLMind XMLEditor is generally pretty nice. Running the XSL-based tool chain to convert to HTML, and chunked HTML is easy.
Currently, I'm using FireFox to create the PDF. It's quick, but dirty. I'm not sure how many of the print-formatting CSS options FireFox can handle, so I haven't really customized the CSS for printing. However, the FireFox PDF has properly embedded fonts and cross-reference links.
Choices
Apple's Pages does a lot. It's a very nice product. But I'm not sure that the PDF and Chunked HTML will work out all that well.
The DocBook tool chain has problems identified above. The PDF output doesn't work because it overwhelms FOP.
- Currently, I use FireFox to create PDF's. I could dress up the CSS to make it look a little better.
- An alternative is to use Pisa to transform the XHTML into PDF. I started using Flying Saucer on another project and the XHTML to PDF idea has some appeal. This requires debugging the print-media CSS, which doesn't seem too bad.
On the other hand, RST can have almost all the semantic richness of XML. I've decided to redo Building Skills in Programming entirely in Sphinx, using RST. This has the advantage of being Python-specific, making heavy use of pygments for syntax coloring.
Also, I could stick with XML and use a different tool-chain to go from DocBook XML LaTeX. The dblatex package may do this nicely.
Tradeoffs
If I switch to Sphinx, editing is much easier. The source is plain text.
The chunked HTML created by Sphinx is outstanding. It's far better than the DocBook HTML. It's much easier to customize than the DocBook XSL, allowing use of Adsense ads with relatively little work.
On the other hand, to produce PDF, I have to go through LaTeX. This means that I have to find a nice LaTeX to PDF tool.
Currently, Sphinx doesn't easily produce a single HTML file. There may be ways around this; perhaps by using an alternate `.. toctree::` directive. But this is also a low-priority requirement, so this may have to be dropped in favor of a better-looking PDF page.
LaTeX to PDF
A Google search for "mac os x latex to pdf" turns up some interesting results.
This list of references makes it look appealing to start with TeXShop and seeing if the LaTeX output from Sphinx can be used to produce PDF.
The TeXLive distribution includes a basic pdfTeX utility that might emit a nice PDF from the Sphinx LaTeX output.
Additionally, there is iTeXMac, which may also convert my Sphinx LaTeX to PDF.
These, however, seem to be largely WYSIWYG editing. While editing LaTeX isn't too bad, I want to work from a single RST source.
Python Solutions
The "python latex to pdf" Google search turns up the following projects for doing LaTeX processing in Python. These look very nice. In particular, they get away from manual editing of LaTeX.
- plasTeX
- pdfTeX
Better Still
Finally, I located the following: http://jimmyg.org/blog/2009/sphinx-pdf-generation-with-latex.html. This makes it clear that Sphinx expects TeXLive. This leads me to MacTeX, which -- it appears -- is what Sphinx expects.
Sphinx generates a makefile to create PDF from the LaTeX. Hopefully, this is not highly Linux-specific and will use the TeXlive distribution on Mac OS X.
Bonus Feature
Switching to LaTeX may also give me a better way to handle the formulas in the exercise sections. Currently, I have to write them and save the images. I don't know how many different equation editors I've used.
Alternative RST to PDF
There's an rst2pdf tool that may make it possible to go from Sphinx RST directly to PDF. Hopefully, this honors all the Sphinx extensions.
Why the fear of Latex? As far as markup languages go, it's pretty damned solid, especially if you want to use anything but the simplest equations. In the world of mathematical publishing, it's the de facto standard, and for good reason.
ReplyDeleteConsidering that you're actually contemplating messing with CSS in order to get Firefox to produce pdfs, using a markup language designed to produce publishable quality documents and a tool designed to convert those documents to pdf while maintaining that quality sounds like the simpler and saner solution to me. In fact, I wonder if a better solution for you, overall, would be to find some software that builds satisfactory html from latex. Then again, my background is as a sys-admin, so we may have differing opinions of 'satisfactory html.' (I suspect dvi2html's method of producing images of the text wouldn't quite cut it for your purposes.)
Maybe you can use Sphinx for pdf generation without latex.
ReplyDeleteRoberto Alsina's rst2pdf can be used as pdf producer in sphinx, as he wrote in hes blog before. Maybe it's not mature enough at this moment, but if you cooperate with him, he can get a good test material (your books) to work with :)