Magnus Manske wrote:
Official clarification: flexbisonparse was written by
Timwi, and Timwi
alone :-)
I had a look at it once, and didn't find my way through the flex jungle,
so I gave up quickly. I did, however, base the XML of wiki2xml on the
flexbisonparse output; they're not identical, however.
I've just given wiki2xml a go on a big page (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventures_of_Tintin ) that is full of
references, and I noticed that there is a problem with some of them:
the following wikicode:
<ref name="Farr">{{cite journal | last =Farr | first =Michael |
authorlink =Michael Farr | coauthors = | year =2004 | month =March |
title =Thundering Typhoons | journal =History Today | volume =54 | issue
=3 | pages =62 | id = | url = | format = | accessdate = }}</ref>
is translated as:
<extension extension_name="ref" name="Farr">
<xhtml:cite style="font-style:normal">.</xhtml:cite>
</extension>
As you can see, there is quite a bit of missing information.
At the moment, I think I'll carry on with flexbisonparse, adding some
python patches to correct the output. Maybe later I'll switch to
wiki2xml instead (although it is a bit slower than flexbisonparse to say
the less). This shouldn't be to difficult as they both use some dialect
of XML.
Concerning docbook, I'll also have to give it a try, but one of my
concerns is that (as far as I know) there is no way to give specific
formatting instructions, which, IMO is mandatory for a nice print
output. I have nothing against semantic description, but sometimes you
have to fine-tune some specific part (figure position, alignment
tolerance...). I'm sure those who use LaTeX intensively will understand...
Cyril