Re: Exporting XML as DocBook, etc
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg61702] Re: Exporting XML as DocBook, etc
- From: "Steven T. Hatton" <hattons at globalsymmetry.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 01:02:03 -0400 (EDT)
- References: <dj4qip$k1a$1@smc.vnet.net> <dj783p$gjl$1@smc.vnet.net>
- Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com
Hans Michel wrote: > Steven: > > A tall order that Mathematica can possibly accomplish. > As much as we complain about the help files there is enough starter > material in the XML section to get you going but it would be a lot of > work. See examples in "Converting a Notebook to HTML" > > You want to deal with SymbolicXML > (Untested steps) So I think the steps would be > Open a notebook > 1. > nb = NotebookOpen[ToFileName[Directory[], "yournotebookhere.nb"]]; > 2. > data = NotebookGet[nb]; > Export the Mathematica Notebook as SymbolicXML > See function ToSymbolicXML > See function ToCompactXML to remove namespace stuff > These are not perfect functions so you may need to debug > See function SymbolicXMLErrors > 3. > xmldata = XML`ToCompactXML[XML`ToSymbolicXML[data], > "http://www.wolfram.com/XML";]; > > Use ConversionOptions to take file from SymbolicXML to DocBook SGML or XML > 4. > Export["yourfilenamehere.sgm", xmldata, "XML", ConversionOptions -> > {"ElementFormatting" -> yourfunctionhere}] > > yourfunctionhere would be a function that takes SymbolicXML Element to > DocBook Element. yourfunction here would also have to deal with moving > elments off the tree (transforms). > > But I would urge you to check the help files. > > Hans I finally figured out how to, more or less, accomplish my first goal. The problem wasn't that I hadn't read the documentation. The problem was that I _had_ read the documentation. If I handjam the Doctype, and omit the ConversionOptions the doctype is preserved. I still see no way to validate a document other than reimporting it. Here's a brief description of part of what XEmacs (or Emacs - It works out of the box with XEmacs) and PSGML will do with XML. It will validate on the fly. If there is an error in the document structure, it will be indicated by anomalous indentation behavior, etc. Mathematica uses a similar emacsism in other contexts. When I place the input cursor in between the begin and end tags of a valid element, I can get a list of all the valid child elements which could be added at that point. By selecting a given element type, it is automatically inserted into the document along with any required child elements. In many cases I can get a listing of required or optional attributes for a given element, and depending on the DTD, I may even get a list of possible values. These of course will be automatically added when I select them from the list. The list can either be viewed using a context menu (XEmacs) opened with a rmc, or through the use of Emacs keyboard arcana. Since the Mathematica FrontEnd functions in a way strikingly similar to Emacs, (ask the person who created the FrontEnd what editor he used when doing so) there seems to be very little reason the same behavior couldn't be emulated in Mathematica. This is an example of the kind of thing I would like to see supported by Mathematica: http://www.mathweb.org/omdoc/index.html. It's actually mind-numbingly complex, and the prospect of a non-expert using any meaningful subset to it's full potential is unlikely. Nonetheless, it could (I believe) be used quite effectively to facilitate and enforce the kind of structure I want in a formal mathematical exposition without delving too deeply into the area of automated proofs. It seems Mathematica has the hardest problems solved as regards creating a powerful support tool for the OMDoc - or other __ML specification. There is lots of support for layout, and face format. It's like they were at the defender's one-yard-line with the ball and no-one around, and they decided to call timeout. I do have to concede that many math textbooks are not as formally structured as I had perceived them to be prior to undertaking this exercise. That is not to suggest that I have changed my views regarding the importance of such formallism. -- "Philosophy is written in this grand book, The Universe. ... But the book cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language... in which it is written. It is written in the language of mathematics, ...; without which wanders about in a dark labyrinth." The Lion of Gaul