Hi, k...@freefriends.org (Karl Berry) skribis:
> What about just Texinfo, or Texinfo-as-sexps? [...] > Texinfo is not simple to parse. To me, the ideal solution to this would be to have the parser available as a library. There’s one in Guile, but it’s incomplete, and not actually used by the Texinfo package. > There are macros, conditionals, unusual argument parsing, and other > source-level constructs to take into account. Plus, the Texinfo > language is not static, so there would be new issues about "command > @xyz is supported by program X but not program Y". That whole area is > bad enough as it is. Right. How frequently is the language changed incompatibly, in practice? [...] > These days, as I keep repeating to no apparent effect, another viable -- > as far as I can see, the best -- approach is use the Texinfo XML output > as your input. This XML is an essentially complete representation of > the input, ... then the above point about language evolution also applies? (I mentioned Texinfo-as-sexps, but Texinfo-as-XML is essentially equivalent.) Thanks, Ludo’.
