From: Mohit Sindhwani <mo_mail@...>
Date: 2009-04-17T02:18:28+09:00
Subject: Re: TexTile to Word Document

HI David

Thanks for your replies.

I'm not averse to working in HTML :)  I do know the full benefits of a 
future-ready text based format.  In fact, that's one of the reasons that 
I like TexTile also.  I was probing to see if there was a nice enough 
way to go to Word.  I don't think I'm going to consider generating a 
Word document based on TexTile.  Working through the Word spec will 
probably be difficult enough!  If at all I go that way, I may consider 
using win32ole to get Word to generate that document for me based on 
parsing Textile.



David Masover wrote:
>> Ya!  I think I may need to look at ripping open the parser and adding
>> Word (or ODT) to the parser (if I remain stubborn enough to do this).  I
>> am less keen to do this... yet!
>>     
>
> Now that I think of it, it's probably simpler to read the Textile-generated 
> HTML. But either way, you'll have to deal with an office format, which isn't 
> going to be fun.
>   

Yes!  that is absolutely correct.

>> I don't care about styles being generated from my CSS.  I'm happy enough
>> if the document retains the semantics of being different types of
>> sections.  I don't mind creating the styles again in the Word/ ODF
>> software.
>>     
>
> In that case, it's probably not too difficult. Still harder than adding a print 
> mode to CSS, but feasible.
>   

I already have a print mode for the CSS.  With CSS3, it seems I can add 
even more.  That's what I'm using right now (CSS2).

> I'll strongly suggest ODF if you go that route, even if you're targeting word, 
> unless you have a _very_ good Word library. The reason is simple: Last I 
> checked, the ODF spec is 600 pages. The Microsoft OpenXML spec is 6000 pages, 
> and is incomplete. On a more subjective level, ODF XML is actually reasonably 
> readable, while OpenXML is not. I'd much rather let a tool like OpenOffice, or 
> the OpenDocument plugin for Word, handle that for me, rather than trying to 
> deal with OpenXML.
>   

You make a good case here!


> What I'm suggesting is that plain old HTML/CSS will probably give you what you 
> need for styling, even for print media, without having to use a word 
> processor. If you can do it with CSS, it will be easier, more portable, and 
> likely more future-proof than trying to do it with a word processor.
>   

Understood... and agreed!

Cheers,
Mohit.
4/17/2009 | 1:18 AM.