3 ms·

One thing I didn't really see in that post is why not just LaTeX directly. Is it just that you prefer Markdown syntax? (Which I guess is a valid reason.)

mrzool 11y ago
LaTeX is complicated and verbose. Markdown and YAML are terse and readable. Also, separation of form from content makes life amazingly simple.
- omaranto 11y ago
  I agree that separation of form from content makes life amazingly simple, that's one the main virtues of LaTeX. :) As I said before, preferring Markdown and YAML solely on account of syntax seems fair to me.
  - mrzool 11y ago
    If both content and form live in the same file, like in the standard LaTeX approach, they're not separated. My approach is to abstract all style-related concerns in a template and keep the content in dedicated files: YAML for structured content (CVs and invoices) and markdown for prose-like content (letters). Beside making life easier by using formats more suited, syntax-wise, for the particular type of content I'm dealing with, this opens up new possibilities for automation (e.g. I can iterate on repetitive data structures, for example for building an invoice table) and ultimately results in DRYer LaTeX code in the template.
    - omaranto 11y ago
      I thought "the standard LaTeX approach" is that you put all of the style information into a document class (or, if you have only minor modifications of a standard document class, into a package) and then all of the content in a separate file with extension .tex. I not only thought that was the standard LaTeX approach but also that that was the point of LaTeX: your document markup is semantic and all formatting issues are decided elsewhere so you can change them independently of the content. (And whether or not that is the standard LaTeX approach it is certainly a possible and recommended approach in LaTeX.) In your approach you don't just separate style from content, but additionally distinguish two types of content (the type you'd write in YAML files from the type you'd write in Markdown). That is different from LaTeX, where both the YAMLly and prose-like things are put in LaTeX source files (for the YAMLly stuff you define macros, like \author, \title, \signature, etc.). At any rate, as I said before: preferring YAML and Markdown to LaTeX syntax seems to me a valid reason for doing things your way. I just wanted to point out that LaTeX makes it easy to separate form and content, too.

mrzool 11y ago

LaTeX is complicated and verbose. Markdown and YAML are terse and readable. Also, separation of form from content makes life amazingly simple.

omaranto 11y ago
I agree that separation of form from content makes life amazingly simple, that's one the main virtues of LaTeX. :) As I said before, preferring Markdown and YAML solely on account of syntax seems fair to me.
- mrzool 11y ago
  If both content and form live in the same file, like in the standard LaTeX approach, they're not separated. My approach is to abstract all style-related concerns in a template and keep the content in dedicated files: YAML for structured content (CVs and invoices) and markdown for prose-like content (letters). Beside making life easier by using formats more suited, syntax-wise, for the particular type of content I'm dealing with, this opens up new possibilities for automation (e.g. I can iterate on repetitive data structures, for example for building an invoice table) and ultimately results in DRYer LaTeX code in the template.
  - omaranto 11y ago
    I thought "the standard LaTeX approach" is that you put all of the style information into a document class (or, if you have only minor modifications of a standard document class, into a package) and then all of the content in a separate file with extension .tex. I not only thought that was the standard LaTeX approach but also that that was the point of LaTeX: your document markup is semantic and all formatting issues are decided elsewhere so you can change them independently of the content. (And whether or not that is the standard LaTeX approach it is certainly a possible and recommended approach in LaTeX.) In your approach you don't just separate style from content, but additionally distinguish two types of content (the type you'd write in YAML files from the type you'd write in Markdown). That is different from LaTeX, where both the YAMLly and prose-like things are put in LaTeX source files (for the YAMLly stuff you define macros, like \author, \title, \signature, etc.). At any rate, as I said before: preferring YAML and Markdown to LaTeX syntax seems to me a valid reason for doing things your way. I just wanted to point out that LaTeX makes it easy to separate form and content, too.