2009-02-18

texinfo vs muse

2009-02-18

On Feb 18, 12:09 am, Water Lin wrote:
> I want to produce a long document, something like a novel or book.
>
> I know how to use Muse mode, and I am using Muse to build my own
> website.
>
> But I am wondering which is beteer since I meet Texinfo, Muse or
> Texinfo?
>
> I don't know if it is more convinent to use Texinfo to produce this long
> document.
>
> What's the deference between Texinfo and Muse? Any suggestions?

Texinfo (there's no t after x) is one of the dinosaur zombie. It's pretty outdated and not widely used, and it generates invalid html. See:

• Texinfo Problems
http://xahlee.org/emacs/texinfo_problems.html

any problem with texinfo you find will require you to go thru the FSF political bureaucracy gauntlet, with one pack of GNU geekers spatting to and fro with you about philosophy and esthetics, going nowhere in no time. The simple problem is that nobody uses it, excerpt maybe just 100 core GNU fanatics around the world.

I haven't check if Muse produces valid html... but it's more flexible, and maintained by a single author with large community. (for example, it is used in Planner, and i perhaps in Org too)

Between the two, i'd recommend Muse. Its author Michael Olson, i also highly respect.

Others recommended TeX/LaTeX. I highly recommend not to use TeX. It's garbage.

It not only botches your math formula structural info (so once your math is presented in TeX, it is technically IMPOSSIBLE to convert to any other format such as MathML), it is also highly unsuitable for producing any structured documentation, by its appearance-diddling nature known as typesetting. One practical problem you'll notice that any html converted from TeX/LaTeX are extremely ugly, invalided, a syntax soup fuckup. Many lang's doc system have moved from TeX to other systems, one example is Python 3.

For a detailed account, see:

• The TeX Pestilence
http://xahlee.org/cmaci/notation/TeX_pestilence.html

--

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.emacs/browse_frm/thread/27c3fabaadbec56d/fef4e5000d62b1c8

No comments:

Post a Comment