Magnus Manske wrote:
Official clarification: flexbisonparse was written by Timwi, and Timwi alone :-)
I had a look at it once, and didn't find my way through the flex jungle, so I gave up quickly. I did, however, base the XML of wiki2xml on the flexbisonparse output; they're not identical, however.
I've just given wiki2xml a go on a big page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventures_of_Tintin ) that is full of references, and I noticed that there is a problem with some of them: the following wikicode: <ref name="Farr">{{cite journal | last =Farr | first =Michael | authorlink =Michael Farr | coauthors = | year =2004 | month =March | title =Thundering Typhoons | journal =History Today | volume =54 | issue =3 | pages =62 | id = | url = | format = | accessdate = }}</ref>
is translated as: <extension extension_name="ref" name="Farr"> <xhtml:cite style="font-style:normal">.</xhtml:cite> </extension>
As you can see, there is quite a bit of missing information.
At the moment, I think I'll carry on with flexbisonparse, adding some python patches to correct the output. Maybe later I'll switch to wiki2xml instead (although it is a bit slower than flexbisonparse to say the less). This shouldn't be to difficult as they both use some dialect of XML.
Concerning docbook, I'll also have to give it a try, but one of my concerns is that (as far as I know) there is no way to give specific formatting instructions, which, IMO is mandatory for a nice print output. I have nothing against semantic description, but sometimes you have to fine-tune some specific part (figure position, alignment tolerance...). I'm sure those who use LaTeX intensively will understand...
Cyril