On 29/10/18 21:04, ian(_dot_)proudfoot(_at_)itp-x(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk wrote:
Agreed Wendell and Graydon. I am already doing multiple passes to
get the content in a suitable state to do the nesting part. I find
that most word processed text is in a poor state for easy conversion
to good XML that is valid to a specific schema.
Microsoft's excellent marketing has successfully persuaded this planet
that "looking pretty" is the same thing as "being right".
When based simply on paragraph and character style names the end
result is often unusable.
IFF the styles are applied rigorously and in conformance with a known
stylesheet, it is actually possible to get fairly good transformations
to (eg) JATS, DocBook, TEI, etc.
So I use temporary attributes that encode the important stylistic
overrides - capturing what the author was trying to achieve. I have
been very pleased with the results.
I'm very intrigued by this: where do you get the author's intentions
from? Traces they leave in the markup (eg italics or bold)?
///Peter
--~----------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
EasyUnsubscribe: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/unsub/xsl-list/1167547
or by email: xsl-list-unsub(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com
--~--