Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 10:58:55 -0800 (PST)
From: Judson <nyarly@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Message-Id: <4682a0d7-9b6b-453f-bc1c-6f9a4f450637@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <20131227041501.GA21848@stodi.digitalkingdom.org>
References: <20131227041501.GA21848@stodi.digitalkingdom.org>
Subject: [lojban] Re: The CLL project, technical directions
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_5105_4947349.1388170735815"
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

------=_Part_5105_4947349.1388170735815
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

My experience with dag/cll is limited to building it a couple of times to 
strip it for references for an Anki deck. That said I think I can 
contribute at least one insight:

It's really obnoxiously difficult to set up the CLL build environment.

I wound up having to update my X11 server to make it work, which is one of 
those red flags for me normally. It also struck me as kind of ridiculous as 
a requirement.

BUT, I have very little experience with document processing, and especially 
with docbook. (I have been involved with a project to write a LaTeX parser 
in Ruby, which is about as fun as you imagine.) Maybe there aren't better 
tools to complete the docbook to PDF pipeline?

All that said, addressing your specific questions:

1) I currently am experiencing the initial disbelief one has in 
encountering a new project. "Surely it doesn't *need* to be this 
complicated." Of course, that's the viewpoint that led Knuth to start TeX 
as a weekend project in the 70s... Every document processing project I've 
encountered as requirements that led them to their current workflow, and I 
don't have the expertise to address them, so... My only cogent thought is: 
given that LaTeX is a necessary evil, maybe it'd be a better source 
language? At least things like \selmaho could be written directly?

2) This may already be available, but in general the most useful tool for 
debugging text transformations I've found are source maps. Failing that, 
the poor-man's version are source comments (e.g. <!-- 
chapter2/section3.docbook:33-58 -->)

3) On the one hand, I'm personally more comfortable in Ruby, but on the 
other: is re-writing that conversion process the best approach? What's it 
written in now?

Judson

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

------=_Part_5105_4947349.1388170735815
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">My experience with dag/cll is limited to building it a cou=
ple of times to strip it for references for an Anki deck. That said I think=
 I can contribute at least one insight:<div><br></div><div>It's really obno=
xiously difficult to set up the CLL build environment.</div><div><br></div>=
<div>I wound up having to update my X11 server to make it work, which is on=
e of those red flags for me normally. It also struck me as kind of ridiculo=
us as a requirement.</div><div><br></div><div>BUT, I have very little exper=
ience with document processing, and especially with docbook. (I have been i=
nvolved with a project to write a LaTeX parser in Ruby, which is about as f=
un as you imagine.) Maybe there aren't better tools to complete the docbook=
 to PDF pipeline?</div><div><br></div><div>All that said, addressing your s=
pecific questions:</div><div><br></div><div>1) I currently am experiencing =
the initial disbelief one has in encountering a new project. "Surely it doe=
sn't *need* to be this complicated." Of course, that's the viewpoint that l=
ed Knuth to start TeX as a weekend project in the 70s... Every document pro=
cessing project I've encountered as requirements that led them to their cur=
rent workflow, and I don't have the expertise to address them, so... My onl=
y cogent thought is: given that LaTeX is a necessary evil, maybe it'd be a =
better source language? At least things like \selmaho could be written dire=
ctly?<br></div><div><br></div><div>2) This may already be available, but in=
 general the most useful tool for debugging text transformations I've found=
 are source maps. Failing that, the poor-man's version are source comments =
(e.g. &lt;!-- chapter2/section3.docbook:33-58 --&gt;)</div><div><br></div><=
div>3) On the one hand, I'm personally more comfortable in Ruby, but on the=
 other: is re-writing that conversion process the best approach? What's it =
written in now?</div><div><br></div><div>Judson</div></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.<br />
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http:=
//groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out=
">https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out</a>.<br />

------=_Part_5105_4947349.1388170735815--