[cl-typesetting-devel] HTML rendering

[Klaus Weidner]

On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 11:41:09AM +0400, Dmitri Ivanov wrote:
> We do need something like this to deal with font variants in cl-typesetting.
> IMHO, that should not use strings in double quotes, but keywords instead. To
> achive that, we can split font names into :font-family and :font-style (or
> :font-variant) components.
> 
> (with-style (:font-family "Times")
>   ...
>     (with-style (:font-style :bold) ; or (:font-style :b)
>      ...))
> 
> The require-cyr-font function (see the attachment) could be a starting
> sample.

That's one example where the FO classification is IMHO useful - remember
that many fonts have more weights than just :bold and :normal.

It defines the following attributes, cf.
  	http://www.w3.org/TR/xsl/slice7.html#font-selection-strategy

  7.8.9 "font-weight"
  
  CSS2 Definition:
  Value: 	normal | bold | bolder | lighter | 100 | 200 | 300 | 400 | 500 |
  600 | 700 | 800 | 900 | inherit
  
  7.8.7 "font-style"
  
  CSS2 Definition:
  Value: 	normal | italic | oblique | backslant | inherit

> I am not an XML expert, but many respectful lispniks (IIRC Eric Naggum,
> Erann Gat to name a few) do not share your love with XML :-)

Well, to each his opinion I guess. But I get the impression that some
people get personally affronted by people embracing XML when Lisp forms
could do the same thing 40 years ago. 

At least XML is something Lisp can easily deal with - interfacing with
existing programs such as OpenOffice is entirely possible, while the
various binary gunk formats XML is largely replacing were impossible to
deal with by anything other than the program that wrote them.

Remember that I'm not talking about using XML anywhere *in* your code -
it's just two simple function calls when reading and writing the data,
and everything done internally uses s-exprs.
 
> It would be well having all the above as optional modules. But I am not for
> making cl-typesetting depend entirely on X-<something>.

I agree with that - I'm not talking about touching the way it works
internally, and writing typesetting instructions in Lisp forms should
always be supported.

What I mean regarding FO is just that some *semantic* compatibility would
be nice - the font property selection is IMHO something that this
standard got right.

> And I agree with Marc about what cl-typesetting doc should be written
> with.

Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree there. But please
imagine for a minute how confusing the input text will look for a
document that explains how to use cl-typesetting and is itself written in
that language (despite verbatim). 

When writing text, I want to be able to concentrate on that and don't
want to think about markup while doing it. The POD extra characters are
the limit of what I personally can tolerate while typing.

-Klaus