Re: Docbook patch
* Mon Sep 12 2005 Brendan Cully <brendan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> On Sunday, 11 September 2005 at 21:34, TAKAHASHI Tamotsu wrote:
> > I don't think it is so bad. It is the only one program
> > natively supports bold/underline, isn't it?
>
> Lynx does too, in fact. That's why it's currently the default renderer
> in the Makefile.
Ah, I confirmed that. Thanks, you are right.
And lynx is pre-installed with OpenBSD by default.
So it's the best processor as the default. (at least for me)
> > w3m is good if bold/underline is implemented.
> > For example, a dirty hack:
> > =======================
> > sed 's,<strong>,MsS,;s,</strong>,MsE,;s,<em>,MiS,;s,</em>,MiE,' \
> > manual.html | \
> > w3m -T text/html -O latin-1 -S -no-graph -dump | \
> > ruby strong-em.rb
>
> As much as I like the language, I'm not inclined to add ruby to the
> dependency list. On the other hand, docbook does drag in a pretty
> motley crew all by itself...
>
> this script of yours could probably be done in awk, or certainly
> perl. Might not be a bad idea...
Of course I didn't want to add the ruby script to the CVS. :)
I just didn't know how to do it in awk/perl.
Thanks Brendan, the DocBook manual is great!
And xmllint doesn't complain at all now!
--
tamo