www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - A mini D book: Markdown or LaTeX?

reply aberba <karabutaworld gmail.com> writes:
Which one works well? I'm more concerned about syntax 
highlighting and line numbering (in some cases). Support for 
custom fonts.
Jan 24 2017
next sibling parent bachmeier <no spam.net> writes:
On Tuesday, 24 January 2017 at 14:27:15 UTC, aberba wrote:

 Which one works well? I'm more concerned about syntax 
 highlighting and line numbering (in some cases). Support for 
 custom fonts.


Unless you have a strong preference for LaTeX syntax, (Pandoc) 
markdown is the better choice. You can export to multiple 
formats, including .tex, and you can insert arbitrary LaTeX 
inside the .md file.

I use Pandoc for all of my class lecture notes, and by the end of 
the semester the full documents will be 180-300 pages, depending 
on the class. I convert .md to .tex to .pdf, but when I want to 
pull parts out to post on the website, I copy the markdown into a 
new file and convert to html.
Jan 24 2017
prev sibling next sibling parent Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> writes:
On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 14:27:15 aberba via Digitalmars-d wrote:

 Which one works well? I'm more concerned about syntax
 highlighting and line numbering (in some cases). Support for
 custom fonts.


You could always use ddoc and then convert that to latex or html or markdown
or whatever, since ddoc is a macro language.

- Jonathan M Davis
Jan 24 2017
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> writes:
On Tue, 2017-01-24 at 14:27 +0000, aberba via Digitalmars-d wrote:

 Which one works well? I'm more concerned about syntax=C2=A0
 highlighting and line numbering (in some cases). Support for=C2=A0
 custom fonts.


I wouldn't use Markdown for such a project.

Personally I would probably use XeLaTeX. Many people might choose
Asciidoctor.

--=20
Russel.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.n=
et
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder
Jan 24 2017
parent reply bachmeier <no spam.net> writes:
On Tuesday, 24 January 2017 at 15:02:26 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:


 I wouldn't use Markdown for such a project.


Is there a reason?


 Many people might choose Asciidoctor.


When I looked at asciidoc, it looked like markdown with 
extensions.
Jan 24 2017
parent reply Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> writes:
On Tue, 2017-01-24 at 16:38 +0000, bachmeier via Digitalmars-d wrote:

 On Tuesday, 24 January 2017 at 15:02:26 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
=20

 I wouldn't use Markdown for such a project.


=20
 Is there a reason?


Unless life has changed, the support for indexing, tables of contents,
floating images, tables, etc. is missing from Markdown.
=20

 Many people might choose Asciidoctor.


=20
 When I looked at asciidoc, it looked like markdown with=C2=A0
 extensions.


Or put another way Markdown is a stripped down Asciidoctor (or
ReStructuredText) for creating single HTML pages with no complicated
content.

Word (or if you are lucky LibreOffice) is the way most publishers want
authors to write. XeLaTeX and Asciidoctor (as a front end to a
DocBook/XML toolchain) are the route for end-user construction of press
PDF.

--=20
Russel.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.n=
et
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder
Jan 25 2017
next sibling parent Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 25 January 2017 at 11:01:14 UTC, Russel Winder 
wrote:


 Or put another way Markdown is a stripped down Asciidoctor (or 
 ReStructuredText) for creating single HTML pages with no 
 complicated content.


There are packages out there that can get generate some decent 
looking output, like Gitbook and Mkdocs. Scrivener also has 
Markdown support and can compile it to all of its normal output 
targets (epub, mobi, pdf, html, etc..).
Jan 25 2017
prev sibling parent reply bachmeier <no spam.net> writes:
On Wednesday, 25 January 2017 at 11:01:14 UTC, Russel Winder 
wrote:

 On Tue, 2017-01-24 at 16:38 +0000, bachmeier via Digitalmars-d 
 wrote:

 On Tuesday, 24 January 2017 at 15:02:26 UTC, Russel Winder 
 wrote:
 

 I wouldn't use Markdown for such a project.


 
 Is there a reason?


 Unless life has changed, the support for indexing, tables of 
 contents,
 floating images, tables, etc. is missing from Markdown.


I see. You were referring to the original Markdown specification, 
which does not have those features. There are many extensions, 
though, like https://bookdown.org/
Jan 25 2017
parent reply Chris <wendlec tcd.ie> writes:
On Wednesday, 25 January 2017 at 14:37:31 UTC, bachmeier wrote:

 I see. You were referring to the original Markdown 
 specification, which does not have those features. There are 
 many extensions, though, like https://bookdown.org/


Nice. How does "bookdown" or any other extension fare regarding 
fine grained layout control à la LaTeX?
Jan 25 2017
parent reply bachmeier <no spam.net> writes:
On Wednesday, 25 January 2017 at 14:51:58 UTC, Chris wrote:

 On Wednesday, 25 January 2017 at 14:37:31 UTC, bachmeier wrote:

 I see. You were referring to the original Markdown 
 specification, which does not have those features. There are 
 many extensions, though, like https://bookdown.org/


 Nice. How does "bookdown" or any other extension fare regarding 
 fine grained layout control à la LaTeX?


It is a layer on top of Pandoc with useful extensions for 
creating books. Pandoc allows you to add arbitrary LaTeX code to 
the document, so AFAIK, you should be able to do anything you can 
do with LaTeX. Most of that would be handled with modifications 
to the .latex template or with a yaml section at the top of the 
document.
Jan 25 2017
parent Chris <wendlec tcd.ie> writes:
On Wednesday, 25 January 2017 at 16:29:18 UTC, bachmeier wrote:

 On Wednesday, 25 January 2017 at 14:51:58 UTC, Chris wrote:

 Nice. How does "bookdown" or any other extension fare 
 regarding fine grained layout control à la LaTeX?


 It is a layer on top of Pandoc with useful extensions for 
 creating books. Pandoc allows you to add arbitrary LaTeX code 
 to the document, so AFAIK, you should be able to do anything 
 you can do with LaTeX. Most of that would be handled with 
 modifications to the .latex template or with a yaml section at 
 the top of the document.


The best of both worlds, in other words.
Jan 25 2017
prev sibling next sibling parent reply qznc <qznc web.de> writes:
On Tuesday, 24 January 2017 at 14:27:15 UTC, aberba wrote:

 Which one works well? I'm more concerned about syntax 
 highlighting and line numbering (in some cases). Support for 
 custom fonts.


I used Sphinx here: https://qznc.github.io/d-tut/

The syntax "ReStructured Text" is more ugly than Markdown, but 
has more features (e.g. different kinds of blocks). Sphinx can 
generate HTML, LaTeX, EPub, and more.

http://www.sphinx-doc.org/
Jan 24 2017
parent Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> writes:
On Tue, 2017-01-24 at 19:34 +0000, qznc via Digitalmars-d wrote:

 On Tuesday, 24 January 2017 at 14:27:15 UTC, aberba wrote:

 Which one works well? I'm more concerned about syntax=C2=A0
 highlighting and line numbering (in some cases). Support for=C2=A0
 custom fonts.


=20
 I used Sphinx here: https://qznc.github.io/d-tut/
=20
 The syntax "ReStructured Text" is more ugly than Markdown, but=C2=A0
 has more features (e.g. different kinds of blocks). Sphinx can=C2=A0
 generate HTML, LaTeX, EPub, and more.
=20
 http://www.sphinx-doc.org/


ReStructuredText and Sphinx is used in many places, but much of it is
ugly, particularly compared to Asciidoctor (which has it's own warts)
and XeLaTeX (which also has some).

In the end it all gets tribal, and is down to personal taste.

I am sad for the demise of FrameMaker on Solaris.

--=20
Russel.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.n=
et
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder
Jan 25 2017
prev sibling next sibling parent Antonio Corbi <amcb ggmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 24 January 2017 at 14:27:15 UTC, aberba wrote:

 Which one works well? I'm more concerned about syntax 
 highlighting and line numbering (in some cases). Support for 
 custom fonts.


If you are an emacs user, probably you have heard about org-mode 
(http://orgmode.org/).

With its new export-backend, you write your text in org-mode 
(very similar to markdown) and then you can export to (almost) 
whatever you want.

Have a look at this opensource book about Operating Systems, it 
is written with org-mode: https://github.com/gwolf/sistop

Antonio
Jan 24 2017
prev sibling next sibling parent Chris Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> writes:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 14:27:15 +0000, aberba wrote:


 Which one works well? I'm more concerned about syntax highlighting and
 line numbering (in some cases). Support for custom fonts.


Markdown produces HTML. You can use any tool that works with HTML to 
modify its output.

If you intend to publish the book, then you should probably find out what 
your publisher needs. You can use anything you want until you send it to 
the publisher, obviously, but there's good odds they'll want to use Word 
with comments and change tracking.

I currently use Subtex for most of my writing, but I'm not trying to 
publish:
https://github.com/dhasenan/subtex

It's probably not appropriate for what you're doing.
Jan 24 2017
prev sibling next sibling parent rikki cattermole <rikki cattermole.co.nz> writes:
On 25/01/2017 3:27 AM, aberba wrote:

 Which one works well? I'm more concerned about syntax highlighting and
 line numbering (in some cases). Support for custom fonts.


I've used leanpub for my two books, it is now $100 per book (one time).
Leanpub uses Markdown as input format and produces pdf, epub and mobi.

Over all, it was a very nice experience and yes it does support code 
blocks for D.
Jan 24 2017
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQ=?= writes:
On Tuesday, 24 January 2017 at 14:27:15 UTC, aberba wrote:

 Which one works well? I'm more concerned about syntax 
 highlighting and line numbering (in some cases). Support for 
 custom fonts.


If you don't mind XML then you might consider http://docbook.org/
Jan 25 2017
parent reply Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> writes:
On Wed, 2017-01-25 at 09:21 +0000, Ola Fosheim Gr=C3=B8stad via Digitalmars=
-
d wrote:

 On Tuesday, 24 January 2017 at 14:27:15 UTC, aberba wrote:

 Which one works well? I'm more concerned about syntax=C2=A0
 highlighting and line numbering (in some cases). Support for=C2=A0
 custom fonts.


=20
 If you don't mind XML then you might consider http://docbook.org/


Asciidoc (and it's continuation Asciidoctor) was invented to be a human
usable front end to the DocBook/XML toolchain =E2=80=93 and it still works =
for
this. Humans should not have to write XML. Hence Asciidoctor.

--=20
Russel.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.n=
et
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder
Jan 25 2017
next sibling parent Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQ=?= writes:
On Wednesday, 25 January 2017 at 10:57:41 UTC, Russel Winder 
wrote:

 Asciidoc (and it's continuation Asciidoctor) was invented to be 
 a human usable front end to the DocBook/XML toolchain – and it 
 still works for this. Humans should not have to write XML. 
 Hence Asciidoctor.


I might look into Asciidoc at some point then. There are decent 
grammar-directed XML editors out there, and plain XML is ok too 
in my opinion. As you mentioned OpenOffice also has some support 
for docbook filters.

Another option is to do your own XML based off HTML5 if HTML is a 
primary target.
Jan 25 2017
prev sibling parent Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:
On Wednesday, 25 January 2017 at 10:57:41 UTC, Russel Winder 
wrote:

 Asciidoc (and it's continuation Asciidoctor) was invented to be 
 a human usable front end to the DocBook/XML toolchain – and it 
 still works for this. Humans should not have to write XML. 
 Hence Asciidoctor.


DocBook FTW, other magical formats are beyond pathetic. What? 
Asccidoc, Asciidoctor, Markdown, SO Markdown, GH Markdown, this 
Markdown, that Markdown, Restructured text, yaml, TeX, LaTeX, 
XeLaTeX, people invented tons of formats just to markup text for 
books and tons of their clones, extensions and incompatibilities, 
it's just laughable. Guess what % character means it those 
magical languages, or why Markdown chose an opposite approach to 
BBcode for square brackets, because it's more fun this way? XML 
is one uniform regular readable syntax for everything, it 
consists of only tags, attributes and comments, no arbitrary 
magical special characters for god only knows what.
Jan 27 2017
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Chris <wendlec tcd.ie> writes:
On Tuesday, 24 January 2017 at 14:27:15 UTC, aberba wrote:

 Which one works well? I'm more concerned about syntax 
 highlighting and line numbering (in some cases). Support for 
 custom fonts.


Depends on what you want to achieve. LaTeX has loads of packages 
that can be installed and you can create professional looking 
layouts. It is quite impressive. I know people who write articles 
and their Ph.D. thesis in LaTeX to get maximum control over the 
layout (to avoid Word-like surprises). LaTeX is accepted by many 
publishers, printers etc., especially in the tech sector. The 
downside is the source code. It's not very nice to read and you 
get lost easily. And try to get back after a year and change 
something! Also, you have to convert it to PDF each time you 
wanna (proof)read it, so you usually deal with two layouts at the 
same time (source code and PDF/HTML), which is time consuming and 
error prone.

 From what I can see, Markdown is much nicer to read and you don't 
need to switch between source code and layout all the time, but 
it is rather limited in comparison to LaTeX. You wouldn't have 
the fine grained control over the layout and you would most 
likely have to convert it to something else before you can send 
it to a publisher / printer. They don't want to waste time with 
exotic or lesser known formats, because they have their own 
infrastructure set up, which leads me to the next point.

A lot of publishers will prefer Word, because they can easily 
edit it and if they have their own layout section, they will 
transform Word to txt and paste it into say Adobe InDesign.

So if you want to publish privately on your homepage or blog, 
pick whatever you want. If you want to publish on one of those 
self-publishing websites, check what they support. If you want 
the old fashioned publisher ask them first what format they want. 
Believe me, you can safe a lot of time. Imagine you create the 
perfect layout with LaTeX and then the publisher goes "Thanks, 
er, can you please send it to me as a Word doc?"

I for my part have stopped worrying about it too much. Just write 
the text (in Word or an Ascii editor) and think about the layout 
later. It helps you to focus on the content rather than on the 
optical structure - and if you have to change, add, delete or 
re-arrange things, it won't cause you any headaches. Write first, 
design later.
Jan 25 2017
parent reply Chris Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> writes:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 11:58:45 +0000, Chris wrote:


 On Tuesday, 24 January 2017 at 14:27:15 UTC, aberba wrote:

 Which one works well? I'm more concerned about syntax highlighting and
 line numbering (in some cases). Support for custom fonts.


 
 I know people who write articles and their Ph.D.
 thesis in LaTeX to get maximum control over the layout (to avoid
 Word-like surprises).


If you are submitting a paper to an academic journal, they will tell you 
what format they expect. If you sent a paper as a Word document when they 
require LaTeX, they will reject it with a note telling you to use LaTeX 
instead. Conversely, if they expect Word documents, they will reject 
anything in LaTeX.

As a PhD student, your advisor will tell you what format to use. This will 
almost certainly match the most commonly used file format for journal 
submissions in your field.

Regardless, you want *consistency* more than control. If you submit to a 
CS journal, they will often give you a .sty file -- this sets up page 
layout and the like, taking control away from the writer of the article. 
If you submit to a humanities journal, they might have a Word document 
template. They might also simply give style requirements that you must 
obey.


 The downside is the source code.
 It's not very nice to read and you get lost easily. And try to get back
 after a year and change something!


It's like C++. If you use the same restricted subset that you understand 
concretely, you shouldn't have a bad time. If you use a different set of 
packages and macros every document, you're in for a world of hurt.


 Also, you have to convert it to PDF
 each time you wanna (proof)read it, so you usually deal with two layouts
 at the same time (source code and PDF/HTML), which is time consuming and
 error prone.


It separates the writing / editing process from the proofing process and 
gives you a significantly different format for proofing. This is helpful 
for catching errors.

I wouldn't use htlatex. Instead of a simple <em> or <i> tag, it produces 
<span class="autogenerated-i-1"> type things. Which is okay if you just 
want to throw it up online, but if you want to produce an ebook with 
maximum compatibility, simpler HTML is better.


 A lot of publishers will prefer Word, because they can easily edit it
 and if they have their own layout section, they will transform Word to
 txt and paste it into say Adobe InDesign.


Change tracking and commenting are the huge things publishers use Word for.


 I for my part have stopped worrying about it too much. Just write the
 text (in Word or an Ascii editor)


If it's a few pages, it's painful and error-prone to retro-add formatting 
once you finished the content. If it's a hundred pages, you might need to 
spend several weeks to format it. That doesn't seem like a good tradeoff 
to me.
Jan 25 2017
parent reply Chris <wendlec tcd.ie> writes:
On Wednesday, 25 January 2017 at 20:07:22 UTC, Chris Wright wrote:

 On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 11:58:45 +0000, Chris wrote:


 On Tuesday, 24 January 2017 at 14:27:15 UTC, aberba wrote:

 Which one works well? I'm more concerned about syntax 
 highlighting and line numbering (in some cases). Support for 
 custom fonts.


 
 I know people who write articles and their Ph.D.
 thesis in LaTeX to get maximum control over the layout (to 
 avoid
 Word-like surprises).


 If you are submitting a paper to an academic journal, they will 
 tell you what format they expect. If you sent a paper as a Word 
 document when they require LaTeX, they will reject it with a 
 note telling you to use LaTeX instead. Conversely, if they 
 expect Word documents, they will reject anything in LaTeX.


They usually accept both Word and LaTeX and provide templates. 
I've never heard of LaTeX only though, because a lot of academics 
wouldn't want to use it - and shouldn't be forced to.


 As a PhD student, your advisor will tell you what format to 
 use. This will almost certainly match the most commonly used 
 file format for journal submissions in your field.


Not true. It's about what the printing company accepts - and they 
are usually fine with LaTeX or a PDF generated out of it. A Ph.D. 
thesis still has to be printed and bound. I think PDF is accepted 
for digital storage.


 Regardless, you want *consistency* more than control. If you 
 submit to a CS journal, they will often give you a .sty file -- 
 this sets up page layout and the like, taking control away from 
 the writer of the article. If you submit to a humanities 
 journal, they might have a Word document template. They might 
 also simply give style requirements that you must obey.


Er, yes. That's how it works. Always ask the publisher first. But 
that wasn't the question. The question was Markdown or LaTeX, and 
if you want to generate your own PDF for e.g. a M.A. or Ph.D., 
some people prefer LaTeX because of the fine grained control it 
offers. I don't know a single Ph.D. student who used Word who 
didn't have to fight with Word stubbornly restructuring the 
layout. The footnotes, the graphics ... a nightmare.


 The downside is the source code.
 It's not very nice to read and you get lost easily. And try to 
 get back
 after a year and change something!


 It's like C++. If you use the same restricted subset that you 
 understand concretely, you shouldn't have a bad time. If you 
 use a different set of packages and macros every document, 
 you're in for a world of hurt.


Unfortunately, you need to add packages for various reasons, e.g. 
IPA (not the beer!) and Maths extensions, formatting extensions 
etc. The odd macro will also make sense.


 Also, you have to convert it to PDF
 each time you wanna (proof)read it, so you usually deal with 
 two layouts
 at the same time (source code and PDF/HTML), which is time 
 consuming and
 error prone.


 It separates the writing / editing process from the proofing 
 process and gives you a significantly different format for 
 proofing. This is helpful for catching errors.


It is helpful to catch errors (cf. the "Save and preview" 
function on this forum), that's why I always read my LibreOffice 
documents as PDF as well. However, constantly switching between 
two representations introduces additional errors.


 I wouldn't use htlatex. Instead of a simple <em> or <i> tag, it 
 produces <span class="autogenerated-i-1"> type things. Which is 
 okay if you just want to throw it up online, but if you want to 
 produce an ebook with maximum compatibility, simpler HTML is 
 better.


 A lot of publishers will prefer Word, because they can easily 
 edit it and if they have their own layout section, they will 
 transform Word to txt and paste it into say Adobe InDesign.


 Change tracking and commenting are the huge things publishers 
 use Word for.


Yes, if they edit it on the screen. Some editors remove all 
formatting, print it and read it on the paper. Formatting and 
change tracking is not always advisable, because it can introduce 
errors like notes or tracked changes that are exported alongside 
the normal text. You'd be surprised at how many writers spend 
hours fighting with Word, trying to format everything only to 
have it removed by the editor.

Either you are given a template / style guide to adhere to, in 
which case they probably have an automatic conversion tool, or 
you shouldn't bother too much with formatting, because they have 
their in-house layout crew.


 I for my part have stopped worrying about it too much. Just 
 write the text (in Word or an Ascii editor)


 If it's a few pages, it's painful and error-prone to retro-add 
 formatting once you finished the content. If it's a hundred 
 pages, you might need to spend several weeks to format it. That 
 doesn't seem like a good tradeoff to me.


Usually you only add "Header (1, 2, 3)" etc. Of course, emphasis 
(bold, italic etc.). has to be marked in the text somehow, else 
you'll never find it again. Then you can add / insert the 
graphics and tables. Not too big a deal. It's worse having to 
restructure an existing layout I think.
Jan 26 2017
parent reply Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:
On Thursday, 26 January 2017 at 10:26:25 UTC, Chris wrote:

 Er, yes. That's how it works. Always ask the publisher first. 
 But that wasn't the question. The question was Markdown or 
 LaTeX, and if you want to generate your own PDF for e.g. a M.A. 
 or Ph.D., some people prefer LaTeX because of the fine grained 
 control it offers. I don't know a single Ph.D. student who used 
 Word who didn't have to fight with Word stubbornly 
 restructuring the layout. The footnotes, the graphics ... a 
 nightmare.


I believe I just used the default Word style. It's a goddamned 
text, why it needs any sort of sophisticated layout aside from 
fitting the page? I had no problem with footnotes maybe because I 
believe they shouldn't exists in such documents in the first 
place: if you want to write something, just write it where it 
fits. It's baffling to see footnotes in ISO standards: if it's 
something important, write it where it belongs, W3C and IETF got 
it right, their documents have no footnotes.
Jan 27 2017
parent reply Chris <wendlec tcd.ie> writes:
On Friday, 27 January 2017 at 11:05:41 UTC, Kagamin wrote:

 On Thursday, 26 January 2017 at 10:26:25 UTC, Chris wrote:

 Er, yes. That's how it works. Always ask the publisher first. 
 But that wasn't the question. The question was Markdown or 
 LaTeX, and if you want to generate your own PDF for e.g. a 
 M.A. or Ph.D., some people prefer LaTeX because of the fine 
 grained control it offers. I don't know a single Ph.D. student 
 who used Word who didn't have to fight with Word stubbornly 
 restructuring the layout. The footnotes, the graphics ... a 
 nightmare.


 I believe I just used the default Word style. It's a goddamned 
 text, why it needs any sort of sophisticated layout aside from 
 fitting the page? I had no problem with footnotes maybe because 
 I believe they shouldn't exists in such documents in the first 
 place: if you want to write something, just write it where it 
 fits. It's baffling to see footnotes in ISO standards: if it's 
 something important, write it where it belongs, W3C and IETF 
 got it right, their documents have no footnotes.


Yes, you are right of course. In a perfect world we'd just write 
a text and give the odd reference. Unfortunately, anyone who 
writes an M.A., M.Sc. or Ph.D. thesis has to reference 
everything. Not even the most basic concept can be mentioned 
without referencing a book written by some professor(s). If a 
student writes "1 + 1 = 2" s/he has to reference it with a 
footnote à la "[1] Smith, T. & Wesson, J. Basic Concepts of 
Arithmetics - An Introduction. Cambridge, 2001."

If you fail to do so, they will grill you. I know, it's 
ridiculous. Having said this, depending on the topic, you do need 
to insert footnotes - either to guide / help your readers or to 
shut up potential critics :-)
Jan 27 2017
next sibling parent jmh530 <john.michael.hall gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 27 January 2017 at 12:02:01 UTC, Chris wrote:

 Yes, you are right of course. In a perfect world we'd just 
 write a text and give the odd reference. Unfortunately, anyone 
 who writes an M.A., M.Sc. or Ph.D. thesis has to reference 
 everything. Not even the most basic concept can be mentioned 
 without referencing a book written by some professor(s). If a 
 student writes "1 + 1 = 2" s/he has to reference it with a 
 footnote à la "[1] Smith, T. & Wesson, J. Basic Concepts of 
 Arithmetics - An Introduction. Cambridge, 2001."

 If you fail to do so, they will grill you. I know, it's 
 ridiculous. Having said this, depending on the topic, you do 
 need to insert footnotes - either to guide / help your readers 
 or to shut up potential critics :-)


Law articles are the worst with footnotes. Sometimes they'll have 
a whole page of footnotes with like one line of text at the top.
Jan 27 2017
prev sibling parent Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:
On Friday, 27 January 2017 at 12:02:01 UTC, Chris wrote:

 If a student writes "1 + 1 = 2" s/he has to reference it with a 
 footnote à la "[1] Smith, T. & Wesson, J. Basic Concepts of 
 Arithmetics - An Introduction. Cambridge, 2001."


Hmm... never saw such convention. Usually the author writes 1+1=2 
[1] in text and full reference is in appendix under this number, 
this is also used in e.g. arxiv.org publications, then footnotes 
are used for explanations and supplementary comments. Another 
convention is when you write an unnumbered short reference sort 
of 1+1=2 (2001, Smith et al.) and full reference is again in 
appendix.
Jan 28 2017
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 1/24/2017 6:27 AM, aberba wrote:

 Which one works well? I'm more concerned about syntax highlighting and line
 numbering (in some cases). Support for custom fonts.


I've used Ddoc to publish a couple of Kindle books.
Jan 25 2017
next sibling parent reply qznc <qznc web.de> writes:
On Thursday, 26 January 2017 at 02:41:24 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

 On 1/24/2017 6:27 AM, aberba wrote:

 Which one works well? I'm more concerned about syntax 
 highlighting and line
 numbering (in some cases). Support for custom fonts.


 I've used Ddoc to publish a couple of Kindle books.


https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=dp_byline_sr_ebooks_1?ie=UTF8&text=Walter+Bright&search-alias=digital-text&field-author=Walter+Bright&sort=relevancerank

"The Historian's History of the World Vol. 1: Prolegomena: Egypt, 
Mesopotamia"

What about Vol. 2? ;)
Jan 26 2017
parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 1/26/2017 1:12 AM, qznc wrote:

 "The Historian's History of the World Vol. 1: Prolegomena: Egypt, Mesopotamia"

 What about Vol. 2? ;)


Too much work :-(
Jan 26 2017
prev sibling parent reply aberba <karabutaworld gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 26 January 2017 at 02:41:24 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

 On 1/24/2017 6:27 AM, aberba wrote:

 Which one works well? I'm more concerned about syntax 
 highlighting and line
 numbering (in some cases). Support for custom fonts.


 I've used Ddoc to publish a couple of Kindle books.


Ddoc seem like a more straight foward approach for documenting 
code but for an ebook, the lack of tables, images, and other 
typesettings (without using HTML) makes it inappropriate for my 
use case.

Will most likely go with markdown and use other solutions for 
theming it. Then pandoc it to PDF

Asiicdoc seem to be more capable but the extra learning curve is 
...
Jan 26 2017
next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 1/26/2017 7:02 AM, aberba wrote:

 Ddoc seem like a more straight foward approach for documenting code but for an
 ebook, the lack of tables, images, and other typesettings (without using HTML)
 makes it inappropriate for my use case.



I did this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Historians-History-World-Vol-Prolegomena-ebook/dp/B00REVL4BC/

It uses tables, images, and multiple fonts, all with Ddoc. It's not perfect,
and 
the Kindle encoding has limitations, but I was able to get it remarkably close 
to the way the original book looked.

Of course, your specific requirements may preclude this, but Ddoc is very
capable.
Jan 26 2017
parent reply Chris <wendlec tcd.ie> writes:
On Thursday, 26 January 2017 at 23:28:37 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

 On 1/26/2017 7:02 AM, aberba wrote:


 I did this book:

 https://www.amazon.com/Historians-History-World-Vol-Prolegomena-ebook/dp/B00REVL4BC/


Is it the same as this:

https://www.kobo.com/ie/en/ebook/the-historians-history-of-the-world-in-twenty-five-volumes-prolegomena-egypt-mesopotamia

It's €3.99 there and only £1.50 (€1.76) on Amazon. However, I 
don't do kindle. I recently got interested in exactly this topic, 
especially Mesopotamia. Would it be a good introduction?
Jan 27 2017
parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 1/27/2017 2:51 AM, Chris wrote:

 On Thursday, 26 January 2017 at 23:28:37 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

 On 1/26/2017 7:02 AM, aberba wrote:


 I did this book:

 https://www.amazon.com/Historians-History-World-Vol-Prolegomena-ebook/dp/B00REVL4BC/


 Is it the same as this:

 https://www.kobo.com/ie/en/ebook/the-historians-history-of-the-world-in-twenty-five-volumes-prolegomena-egypt-mesopotamia


 It's €3.99 there and only £1.50 (€1.76) on Amazon. However, I don't do
kindle. I
 recently got interested in exactly this topic, especially Mesopotamia. Would it
 be a good introduction?


Yes, it's the same book, but mine does a better job with the images and 
typography. Yes, it's a great introduction.
Jan 27 2017
prev sibling parent Chris <wendlec tcd.ie> writes:
On Thursday, 26 January 2017 at 15:02:33 UTC, aberba wrote:

 Will most likely go with markdown and use other solutions for 
 theming it. Then pandoc it to PDF


Markdown is also supported by vibe.d's diet templates.
Jan 27 2017
prev sibling parent Jesse Phillips <Jesse.K.Phillips+D gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 24 January 2017 at 14:27:15 UTC, aberba wrote:

 Which one works well? I'm more concerned about syntax 
 highlighting and line numbering (in some cases). Support for 
 custom fonts.


Well I worked with Latex, I hate it. If you do go that route here 
is some syntax highlighting

https://github.com/JesseKPhillips/dlang-latex-listings

If you would like to have your examples compiled/tested you can 
use/modify:

https://github.com/JesseKPhillips/listings-dlang-extractor

Enjoy finding the best typesetter for your project.
Jan 26 2017