🚀 go-pugleaf

>>>>> On 14 Sep 90 18:17:19 GMT, dns@sq.sq.com (David Slocombe) said:
David> The need for SGML is demonstrated by examining the problem of translating
David> a troff document (for example) into an SGML document:

David> If a computer program looks at a file containing a troff document, it
David> will see things like...

David> 	.sp .5v
David> 	.ti 2m
David> 	text text text ....
David> 	...text text.
David> 	.sp .5v

David> Now we may decide, in context, that these formatting codes are
David> formatting a paragraph (we *visualize* the effect of the codes!), but
David> they *might* be formatting a "note" or a cell of a table or whatever.

Which is why I gave up on `roff!  There are more abstract markup languages.
LaTeX and Scribe come to mind.  (I'm sure there are others.)

In LaTeX, you have something more like:

\begin{document}
\abstract{text text text...}
\section
text text text...
\subsection
text text\footnote{text text text...} text...
\subsubsection
text text text...
...
\end{document}

Note that explicit formatting commands are ommitted (except by the
occaisional novice attempting to defeat the purpose of LaTeX.)  The format
of a "\section", for example, is determined in a separate "style" file.
There are also "environments" for tables, lists, etc. that are similarly
abstract (compared to explicit amgiguous formatting commands like, "indent
an extra 1/2 inch, place a bullet, boldface first word, etc.")

Bearing all this in mind, would it be possible to construct "intelligent"
converters from/to LaTeX to/from SGML that preserve the document's overall
structure?  ...if _explicit_ formatting commands were simply ignored?

Could this be done in a general way, or would a translator _necessarily_
have to target a _specific_ DTD?  Suggested approaches are welcome.

(What I have in mind are yacc/lex based translators.)

	Thanks in advance,
--
Chuck Phillips  MS440
NCR Microelectronics 			Chuck.Phillips%FtCollins.NCR.com
2001 Danfield Ct.
Ft. Collins, CO.  80525   		uunet!ncrlnk!ncr-mpd!bach!chuckp