Re: new-document and doc-processing menu behavior

On Dec 9, 2003, at 3:22 AM, Michael Smith wrote:

>>> It seems like the "Process Document" submenu will either need to work
>>> from the assumption that there's only one document per directory, and
>>> it's associated with a file called "Makefile" in the same directory. 
>>> Or
>>> it could work by looking for a file with the extension ".mk" and the
>>> same base name as the document in the current buffer. That'd allow 
>>> you
>>> to have multiple documents in the same directory.
>>
>> I think I prefer the latter.
>
> OK. I guess this is also something that could be configurable. But I
> wonder a little why you'd need it, because from your description below,
> it seems that, in that directory, you've still got one logical document
> (dissent-book.xml) for which you want to generate an bibliography --
> it's just broken up into separate physical files for each chapter.

Yes.  I would prefer to group by directory, but I could imagine someone 
wanting to have more than one document in a directory.  My bigger issue 
is to dump the output files in their own subdirectories (don't want a 
bunch of TeX files littering the doc directory).

>> Aside: how to do this without entities?
>
> Use XInclude's and have RefDB call xsltproc to process those?

Can RefDB already handle this Markus?  I want to avoid using entities 
altogether.

>> Since the book is broken up into pieces, I often just run a
>> transformation on an individual chapter (apart from refdb).  I don't
>> know that it is necessary for RefDB to be involved there, but it might
>> be helpful (say I send a draft chapter to someone).
>>
>> This may be tricky though...
>
> Would you also be generating a biblography for an individual chapter?

Not at this stage.  But when I get farther along, I could see sending 
out a draft chapter for comment that included RefDB-processed 
bibliography and citations.

> If not, since it seems like a main purpose of going through the RefDB
> toolchain is to generate the bibliography, maybe processing of the
> individual chapters is out of scope for RefDB Emacs integration. Or to
> put it another way, if it's not something you'd use the RefDB toolchain
> to do from the command line, it seems like it's probably not something
> that needs to be in the Emacs integration.

This is a somewhat non-standard case that would be nice to accommodate 
if feasible, but not strictly necessary.

Bruce



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials.
Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills.  Sign up for IBM's
Free Linux Tutorials.  Learn everything from the bash shell to sys admin.
Click now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1278&alloc_id=3371&op=click