From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Fri Apr 13 15:52:43 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 13 Apr 2001 22:52:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 18986 invoked from network); 13 Apr 2001 22:52:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Apr 2001 22:52:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.169.75.101) by mta1 with SMTP; 13 Apr 2001 22:52:42 -0000 Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 14oCQi-0004Zy-00 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 15:52:40 -0700 Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 15:52:40 -0700 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Group Document Editing? Message-ID: <20010413155240.B13826@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban@onelist.com References: <200104132030.QAA11247@benthic.rattlesnake.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.17i In-Reply-To: ; from jay.kominek@colorado.edu on Fri, Apr 13, 2001 at 04:06:42PM -0600 From: Robin Lee Powell On Fri, Apr 13, 2001 at 04:06:42PM -0600, Jay Kominek wrote: > > On Fri, 13 Apr 2001, Robert J. Chassell wrote: > > > TeXinfo isn't terribly manipulable, IMO, but easy enough to output, I > > should think. > > > > You are right, it is easy to output. What I am curious about is your > > comment that it "isn't terribly manipulable". > > I think you went off in the wrong direction. :) > > What I meant was that I wouldn't want to have to parse TeXinfo everytime I > wanted to load the database. You wouldn't have to. I'd be parsing it into other thing (including HTML) on a regular basis (daily, maybe even hourly). > Sure, it'd be easier than parsing free-form TeXinfo since presumably I'd > be parsing something I'd output myself, so it'd be a matter of regular > expressions, but why even have to do that much when one could store the > data in, say, a Perl data structure that you require in (I like Perl, in > case the list population had not yet noticed), or simply in a SQL > database. I like that last option. SQL's cool. > > [... Discussion of why TeXinfo is The Thing To Use ...] > > Should I write this web editable dictionary thing (I've not seen any mail > public or private from people telling me that they're interested in using > it and that it'll be the greatest thing since store-bought sliced bread :) I think it'd rock pretty damn hard, myself. I've just been busy trying to find ***SOMETHING*** to use for collaborating on large translations. I really thing lojban needs to tranlate something big to prove our viability. > then I'll probably make some effort to provide the output in every > format which the combination of a Perl script and an external utility > can provide. (Docbook, HTML, ASCII, TeXInfo, PDF, PS, RTF(?), XML, > etc, etc...) Heh heh. Conversion _good_. Although I'm happy to do that aspect of it if you give me a good output format. > - Jay Kominek > X is the second worst windowing system in the > world, but all the others are tied for first. Dude, I so disagree. X is a total piece of bloatware crap. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ BTW, I'm male, honest. le datni cu djica le nu zifre .iku'i .oi le so'e datni cu to'e te pilno je xlali -- RLP http://www.lojban.org/