RE: intergrating external tools vs makefiles

Hi Denis,

 

It sounds like the perfect use-case for XProc to me (but the devil is of course in the details).

 

You can call external tools from XProc ( <https://spec.xproc.org/master/head/os/#c.os-exec> https://spec.xproc.org/master/head/os/#c.os-exec), but currently with the EE Morgana version only. It is however not that expensive, for more information contact Achim Berndzen ( <mailto:achim.berndzen@xml-project.com> achim.berndzen@xml-project.com).

 

Erik Siegel

 

From: denis.maier@unibe.ch <denis.maier@unibe.ch> 
Sent: Tuesday, 14 May 2024 10:22
To: xproc-dev@w3.org
Subject: intergrating external tools vs makefiles

 

Hi,

 

As said in my earlier message, I’m currently learning xproc. 

 

As a journal manager I’ve implemented a single source publishing workflow using pandoc (word->markdown ; markdown -> jats xml), xslt (polishing the xml; xml->html) , and context (xml->pdf). Everything currently held together by a rather simplistic makefile. Now, I’m evaluating better options, and I’m wondering if and how I could use xproc for that or at least intergrate it into my workflow. I’ve already decided that a xproc pipeline will probably be better than my monoithic xslt cleanup script (which is getting bigger and less maintainable).

 

But should it be possible to use xproc pipelines instead of a makefile? Can it easily call external tools? And would that be easier and more flexible than the makefile approach? I’ve also thought about using python scripts or maybe a go cli tool, but I’m wondering if xproc would be a better choice.

 

Best,

Denis