Disclaimer: I contributed to newsletter volume 2 but I am not thanking myself but everyone *else* involved in its production. :)
Woo hoo! I was glad to see volume 2 is now available.
As a contributor I have two things I want to say:
* In the PDF version the images of the plugins are very small and almost impossible to read, although they look OK in the HTML version. I am "testing" under Linux and the Chrome web browser.
* In the screenshots I took of the plugins, I think it would be better if (1) the plugin is enabled on the screenshot and (2) I don't show the mouse cursor. Any constructive feedback is welcome.
Hi,
Am 23.05.2011 00:25, schrieb Russell Dickenson:
- In the PDF version the images of the plugins are very small and
almost impossible to read, although they look OK in the HTML version. I am "testing" under Linux and the Chrome web browser.
This is due an issue on rst2pdf I wasn't able to figure out. Some width parameter or something is missing on images indicated by an warning when running VOL=2 make pdf
Cheers, Frank
On 23 May 2011 19:20, Frank Lanitz frank@frank.uvena.de wrote:
Hi,
Am 23.05.2011 00:25, schrieb Russell Dickenson:
Hi Russell,
Maybe we should have listened to your first suggestion of using Asciidoc :-)
Cheers Lex
- In the PDF version the images of the plugins are very small and
almost impossible to read, although they look OK in the HTML version. I am "testing" under Linux and the Chrome web browser.
This is due an issue on rst2pdf I wasn't able to figure out. Some width parameter or something is missing on images indicated by an warning when running VOL=2 make pdf
Cheers, Frank _______________________________________________ Geany mailing list Geany@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany
On 23 May 2011 19:33, Frank Lanitz frank@frank.uvena.de wrote:
Am 23.05.2011 11:27, schrieb Lex Trotman:
Maybe we should have listened to your first suggestion of using Asciidoc :-)
:)
Well, with LaTeX I didn't had such issues (SCNR) ;)
That's OK but my issue with LaTeX is having to press the [Shift] key 3 times while typing its name. :P
Unfortunately I haven't been able to test or check the output of rst2pdf because it's not available in my Linux distro's packag repository and I haven't yet tried manually downloading and installing it.
In another thread is feedback from a reader about the structure of the newsletter. What you do think about adding visual clues - i.e. icons - to the various sections? It would help make the newsletter better (IMHO) and provide some hint of the type of content for each section.
Cheers, Frank
On 23 May 2011 20:30, Russell Dickenson russelldickenson@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 May 2011 19:33, Frank Lanitz frank@frank.uvena.de wrote:
Am 23.05.2011 11:27, schrieb Lex Trotman:
Maybe we should have listened to your first suggestion of using Asciidoc :-)
:)
Well, with LaTeX I didn't had such issues (SCNR) ;)
That's OK but my issue with LaTeX is having to press the [Shift] key 3 times while typing its name. :P
Nah, thats nothing, you've got to use your unicode inserter Lᴬτεχ right Frank :-)
Unfortunately I haven't been able to test or check the output of rst2pdf because it's not available in my Linux distro's packag repository and I haven't yet tried manually downloading and installing it.
Maybe Frank should use rst2latex and then process the latex as he usually does, best of both worlds!
In another thread is feedback from a reader about the structure of the newsletter. What you do think about adding visual clues - i.e. icons - to the various sections? It would help make the newsletter better (IMHO) and provide some hint of the type of content for each section.
Yeah, if they can be used in the text version :-)
But if they were unicode characters like • or ☯ or ⌘ then I guess they might work.
Cheers Lex
Am 23.05.2011 12:55, schrieb Lex Trotman:
Unfortunately I haven't been able to test or check the output of
rst2pdf because it's not available in my Linux distro's packag repository and I haven't yet tried manually downloading and installing it.
Maybe Frank should use rst2latex and then process the latex as he usually does, best of both worlds!
As mentioned before I didn't get it maanged that the output TeX is not scaring me. E.g. by default they do not use the LaTeX way of creating a table of content while using for each section the *-variant of command etc. Help to get this solved is highly welcome.
Cheers, Frank
On 23 May 2011 21:16, Frank Lanitz frank@frank.uvena.de wrote:
Am 23.05.2011 12:55, schrieb Lex Trotman:
Unfortunately I haven't been able to test or check the output of
rst2pdf because it's not available in my Linux distro's packag repository and I haven't yet tried manually downloading and installing it.
Maybe Frank should use rst2latex and then process the latex as he usually does, best of both worlds!
As mentioned before I didn't get it maanged that the output TeX is not scaring me. E.g. by default they do not use the LaTeX way of creating a table of content while using for each section the *-variant of command etc. Help to get this solved is highly welcome.
I'm probably stating the bleedin' obvious, but did you use the --use_latex_toc option?
Cheers Lex
Cheers, Frank _______________________________________________ Geany mailing list Geany@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany
Am 23.05.2011 13:59, schrieb Lex Trotman:
On 23 May 2011 21:16, Frank Lanitz frank@frank.uvena.de wrote:
Am 23.05.2011 12:55, schrieb Lex Trotman:
Unfortunately I haven't been able to test or check the output of
rst2pdf because it's not available in my Linux distro's packag repository and I haven't yet tried manually downloading and installing it.
Maybe Frank should use rst2latex and then process the latex as he usually does, best of both worlds!
As mentioned before I didn't get it maanged that the output TeX is not scaring me. E.g. by default they do not use the LaTeX way of creating a table of content while using for each section the *-variant of command etc. Help to get this solved is highly welcome.
I'm probably stating the bleedin' obvious, but did you use the --use_latex_toc option?
Ehm... yes? (did you get it managed with this?)
Cheers, Frank
Am 23.05.2011 14:30, schrieb Frank Lanitz:
Am 23.05.2011 13:59, schrieb Lex Trotman:
On 23 May 2011 21:16, Frank Lanitz frank@frank.uvena.de wrote:
Am 23.05.2011 12:55, schrieb Lex Trotman:
Unfortunately I haven't been able to test or check the output of
rst2pdf because it's not available in my Linux distro's packag repository and I haven't yet tried manually downloading and installing it.
Maybe Frank should use rst2latex and then process the latex as he usually does, best of both worlds!
As mentioned before I didn't get it maanged that the output TeX is not scaring me. E.g. by default they do not use the LaTeX way of creating a table of content while using for each section the *-variant of command etc. Help to get this solved is highly welcome.
I'm probably stating the bleedin' obvious, but did you use the --use_latex_toc option?
Ehm... yes? (did you get it managed with this?)
Puh... sorry, if this was a bit rude - wasn't my intention.
But this topic is really depressing me and I bet I did try every single option described in man page but didn't get any satisfying output :(
Cheers, Frank
On 23 May 2011 22:34, Frank Lanitz frank@frank.uvena.de wrote:
Am 23.05.2011 14:30, schrieb Frank Lanitz:
Am 23.05.2011 13:59, schrieb Lex Trotman:
On 23 May 2011 21:16, Frank Lanitz frank@frank.uvena.de wrote:
Am 23.05.2011 12:55, schrieb Lex Trotman:
Unfortunately I haven't been able to test or check the output of > rst2pdf because it's not available in my Linux distro's packag > repository and I haven't yet tried manually downloading and installing > it.
Maybe Frank should use rst2latex and then process the latex as he usually does, best of both worlds!
As mentioned before I didn't get it maanged that the output TeX is not scaring me. E.g. by default they do not use the LaTeX way of creating a table of content while using for each section the *-variant of command etc. Help to get this solved is highly welcome.
I'm probably stating the bleedin' obvious, but did you use the --use_latex_toc option?
Ehm... yes? (did you get it managed with this?)
Puh... sorry, if this was a bit rude - wasn't my intention.
I didn't even notice :-)
But this topic is really depressing me and I bet I did try every single option described in man page but didn't get any satisfying output :(
Now this isn't going to make sense but it worked for me with
rst2latex --use-latex-toc --no-section-numbering newsletter_2.rst news2.tex
No * variants and using geany to run latex gives a pdf with toc.
Cheers Lex
On 23 May 2011 23:12, Lex Trotman elextr@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 May 2011 22:34, Frank Lanitz frank@frank.uvena.de wrote:
Am 23.05.2011 14:30, schrieb Frank Lanitz:
Am 23.05.2011 13:59, schrieb Lex Trotman:
On 23 May 2011 21:16, Frank Lanitz frank@frank.uvena.de wrote:
Am 23.05.2011 12:55, schrieb Lex Trotman:
> Unfortunately I haven't been able to test or check the output of >> rst2pdf because it's not available in my Linux distro's packag >> repository and I haven't yet tried manually downloading and installing >> it. Maybe Frank should use rst2latex and then process the latex as he usually does, best of both worlds!
As mentioned before I didn't get it maanged that the output TeX is not scaring me. E.g. by default they do not use the LaTeX way of creating a table of content while using for each section the *-variant of command etc. Help to get this solved is highly welcome.
I'm probably stating the bleedin' obvious, but did you use the --use_latex_toc option?
Ehm... yes? (did you get it managed with this?)
Puh... sorry, if this was a bit rude - wasn't my intention.
I didn't even notice :-)
But this topic is really depressing me and I bet I did try every single option described in man page but didn't get any satisfying output :(
Now this isn't going to make sense but it worked for me with
rst2latex --use-latex-toc --no-section-numbering newsletter_2.rst news2.tex
No * variants and using geany to run latex gives a pdf with toc.
Cheers Lex
Sorry for serial posting, I forgot to mention that without --no-section-numbering the DVI output toc seems to work right even with the * version, so the latex although strange is ok, but no section numbering. I'm sure you know how to turn that on.
Stop press: if I run the pdf conversion after I run the DVI conversion the PDF gives a TOC even with the * commands version. Must be reading a file left around by the DVI conversion or the non- * version.
Looks like latex tools problems to me :-(
And thats why I don't do latex directly he says getting in a last gentle dig :-)
Cheers Lex
Am 23.05.2011 15:12, schrieb Lex Trotman:
On 23 May 2011 22:34, Frank Lanitz frank@frank.uvena.de wrote:
Am 23.05.2011 14:30, schrieb Frank Lanitz:
Am 23.05.2011 13:59, schrieb Lex Trotman:
On 23 May 2011 21:16, Frank Lanitz frank@frank.uvena.de wrote:
Am 23.05.2011 12:55, schrieb Lex Trotman:
> Unfortunately I haven't been able to test or check the output of >> rst2pdf because it's not available in my Linux distro's packag >> repository and I haven't yet tried manually downloading and installing >> it. Maybe Frank should use rst2latex and then process the latex as he usually does, best of both worlds!
As mentioned before I didn't get it maanged that the output TeX is not scaring me. E.g. by default they do not use the LaTeX way of creating a table of content while using for each section the *-variant of command etc. Help to get this solved is highly welcome.
I'm probably stating the bleedin' obvious, but did you use the --use_latex_toc option?
Ehm... yes? (did you get it managed with this?)
Puh... sorry, if this was a bit rude - wasn't my intention.
I didn't even notice :-)
But this topic is really depressing me and I bet I did try every single option described in man page but didn't get any satisfying output :(
Now this isn't going to make sense but it worked for me with
Weird.
rst2latex --use-latex-toc --no-section-numbering newsletter_2.rst news2.tex
No * variants and using geany to run latex gives a pdf with toc.
Can you please provide the output in tex and pdf somewhere? I'm a bit confused about --no-section-numbering as this is what we were discussing earlier.
Cheers, Frank
Hi,
Am 23.05.2011 15:12, schrieb Lex Trotman: [...]
Now this isn't going to make sense but it worked for me with
rst2latex --no-section-numbering --use-latex-toc newsletter_2.rst news2.tex
No * variants and using geany to run latex gives a pdf with toc.
Lex did sent me the output. The toc really is working but the numbering for section did not work - as I had before - which is sad on a first view.
BUT: Inside Lex's version there was the command \setcounter{secnumdepth}{0} which is telling to don't put any section numbering in levels below level 0 (so complete document). Setting this to 3 is giving a numbered result -- which is what we were talking about and quiet confusing me. Also they don't use the *-version of sections commands in this case. A bug inside rst2latex or just in my brain? Having a look inside man page (10.04 Ubuntu) its telling me this:
--section-numbering Enable section numbering by Docutils. (default)
--no-section-numbering Disable section numbering by Docutils.
Maybe I just misunderstood this whole stuff?
Cheers, Frank
BUT: Inside Lex's version there was the command \setcounter{secnumdepth}{0} which is telling to don't put any section numbering in levels below level 0 (so complete document). Setting this to 3 is giving a numbered result -- which is what we were talking about and quiet confusing me. Also they don't use the *-version of sections commands in this case. A bug inside rst2latex or just in my brain? Having a look inside man page (10.04 Ubuntu) its telling me this:
--section-numbering Enable section numbering by Docutils. (default)
--no-section-numbering Disable section numbering by Docutils.
Well this makes sense if we want Latex to do the section numbering, well sort of..
Maybe I just misunderstood this whole stuff?
Hi Frank,
I havn't had time to try anything else, but I did find this page which I havn't seen before. It says the to set the secnumdepth using a Latex stylesheet (see section numbering part).
In general it seems to cover more of using rst with latex.
http://docutils.sourceforge.net/docs/user/latex.html
Cheers Lex
Le 24/05/2011 06:52, Lex Trotman a écrit :
BUT: Inside Lex's version there was the command \setcounter{secnumdepth}{0} which is telling to don't put any section numbering in levels below level 0 (so complete document). Setting this to 3 is giving a numbered result -- which is what we were talking about and quiet confusing me. Also they don't use the *-version of sections commands in this case. A bug inside rst2latex or just in my brain? Having a look inside man page (10.04 Ubuntu) its telling me this:
--section-numbering Enable section numbering by Docutils. (default) --no-section-numbering Disable section numbering by Docutils.
Well, looks like the Docutils numbering don't work, and that --no-section-numbering works as expected: removes sections numbering. However, it don't seem possible to really easily have LaTeX section numbering.
Maybe I just misunderstood this whole stuff?
Hi Frank,
I havn't had time to try anything else, but I did find this page which I havn't seen before. It says the to set the secnumdepth using a Latex stylesheet (see section numbering part).
In general it seems to cover more of using rst with latex.
Hey, good link! Looks like (part of) the hackish sed stuff I did may not be useful. Frank, is there a way to put the TOC on it's own page without manually adding \newpage after \tableofcontents ? if yes, I could drop the sed stuff in favor to either a stylesheet or the template.
Cheers, Colomban
On Tue, 24 May 2011 18:21:30 +0200 Colomban Wendling lists.ban@herbesfolles.org wrote:
Hey, good link! Looks like (part of) the hackish sed stuff I did may not be useful. Frank, is there a way to put the TOC on it's own page without manually adding \newpage after \tableofcontents ? if yes, I could drop the sed stuff in favor to either a stylesheet or the template.
Some document classes do this by default but I don't know a common way doing this via document class option or something like that.
Cheers, Frank
Am 23.05.2011 12:30, schrieb Russell Dickenson:
In another thread is feedback from a reader about the structure of the newsletter. What you do think about adding visual clues - i.e. icons - to the various sections? It would help make the newsletter better (IMHO) and provide some hint of the type of content for each section.
I'm afraid this will mess up the structure even more.
Cheers, Frank
On 23 May 2011 21:17, Frank Lanitz frank@frank.uvena.de wrote:
Am 23.05.2011 12:30, schrieb Russell Dickenson:
In another thread is feedback from a reader about the structure of the newsletter. What you do think about adding visual clues - i.e. icons - to the various sections? It would help make the newsletter better (IMHO) and provide some hint of the type of content for each section.
I'm afraid this will mess up the structure even more.
Good point. Given the current problems this idea can either be deleted or put in a wait state for the moment. :)
Cheers, Frank
Am 23.05.2011 13:17, schrieb Frank Lanitz:
Am 23.05.2011 12:30, schrieb Russell Dickenson:
In another thread is feedback from a reader about the structure of the newsletter. What you do think about adding visual clues - i.e. icons - to the various sections? It would help make the newsletter better (IMHO) and provide some hint of the type of content for each section.
I'm afraid this will mess up the structure even more.
Well, maybe I should go more into detail: We could add some graphical category indicator, but this should be done already by structure of document itself. Here I do see a lot of potential we should use before thinking of adding some additional gadget.
Later we can think about something like that but have to keep in mind, we do have a pdf, a html and a plain text release of the newsletter.
Cheers, Frank