New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Incompatibilities with texh4t #310

Closed
simifilm opened this Issue Mar 26, 2015 · 24 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
4 participants
@simifilm

I don't know whether this belongs here or should go to the tex4ht bug tracker, but there are currently serious issues when trying to use biblatex and tex4ht.

Take the following MWE:

\documentclass{article} 

\begin{filecontents}{test.bib} 
@book{Hiemenz, 
author={Hiemenz}, 
title={Polymer Chemistry} 
} 
\end{filecontents} 

\usepackage{hyperref} 

\usepackage[backend=biber, hyperref=auto, backref=true]{biblatex} 
\bibliography{test} 
\begin{document} 

Here comes a quotation \cite{Hiemenz}. 

\printbibliography 

\end{document}

When running the sequence mk4ht oolatex tesfile – biber tesfile – mk4ht oolatex testfile, no error is produced, but the resulting ODT file doesn't contain the resolved citation.

And this is only with the simplest MWE. With a more complex document I get all kind of strange errors, which are rather hard to debug. I guess my real question is whether the respective developers are aware of the problems.

@plk

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@plk

plk Mar 26, 2015

Owner

I wasn't aware that bibaltex ever really worked properly with tex4ht ... did it?

Owner

plk commented Mar 26, 2015

I wasn't aware that bibaltex ever really worked properly with tex4ht ... did it?

@aboruvka

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@aboruvka

aboruvka Mar 26, 2015

Collaborator

It mostly did awhile back, but not since tex4ht's author (Eitan Gurari) passed away unexpectedly. Maintainers have volunteered, but the issues with biblatex that have cropped up are pretty involved - I wouldn't expect them to be fixed soon.

Collaborator

aboruvka commented Mar 26, 2015

It mostly did awhile back, but not since tex4ht's author (Eitan Gurari) passed away unexpectedly. Maintainers have volunteered, but the issues with biblatex that have cropped up are pretty involved - I wouldn't expect them to be fixed soon.

@simifilm

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@simifilm

simifilm Mar 26, 2015

So should I file a bug with the tex4ht bug tracker?

So should I file a bug with the tex4ht bug tracker?

@aboruvka

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@aboruvka

aboruvka Mar 26, 2015

Collaborator

You could try. In the interim you could roll back to whatever version of biblatex/biber was around the last time Eitan updated tex4ht. From what I remember it worked fine as long as you weren't doing anything complicated with citation labels.

Collaborator

aboruvka commented Mar 26, 2015

You could try. In the interim you could roll back to whatever version of biblatex/biber was around the last time Eitan updated tex4ht. From what I remember it worked fine as long as you weren't doing anything complicated with citation labels.

@moewew

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@moewew

moewew Mar 27, 2015

Collaborator

@simifilm While dealing with this TeX.SX question I found that biblatex support for recent versions in tex4ht is possible and has in fact been implemented. The relevant files (that is biblatex.4ht mainly, I imagine) don't seem to have made their way into an official release though (at least not in MikTeX), you can find a fairly new file at http://texdoc.net/texmf-dist/tex/generic/tex4ht/biblatex.4ht.

Whether this is ready to be released so that all people can use it is something you could bring up with the tex4ht maintainers.

PS: It seems that most problems with the repository version of tex4ht are resolved by this
Tex4ht, biblatex and biber: what is proper processing?.

Collaborator

moewew commented Mar 27, 2015

@simifilm While dealing with this TeX.SX question I found that biblatex support for recent versions in tex4ht is possible and has in fact been implemented. The relevant files (that is biblatex.4ht mainly, I imagine) don't seem to have made their way into an official release though (at least not in MikTeX), you can find a fairly new file at http://texdoc.net/texmf-dist/tex/generic/tex4ht/biblatex.4ht.

Whether this is ready to be released so that all people can use it is something you could bring up with the tex4ht maintainers.

PS: It seems that most problems with the repository version of tex4ht are resolved by this
Tex4ht, biblatex and biber: what is proper processing?.

@simifilm

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@simifilm

simifilm Mar 27, 2015

Thanks, but AFAICS the new file doesn't make any difference.

Thanks, but AFAICS the new file doesn't make any difference.

@simifilm

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@simifilm

simifilm Mar 27, 2015

Could it be that the latest changes from dev have caused new incompatibilities?

Could it be that the latest changes from dev have caused new incompatibilities?

@moewew

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@moewew

moewew Mar 28, 2015

Collaborator

Just checked it again, if I use htlatex test, biber test, htlatex test everything works like a charm (I could not use mk4ht because I didn't have a configuration file at hand.).

Did you also make sure that the new version of biblatex.4ht was actually loaded - the .log file reports the version, mine is 2015-02-04-14:23.

Collaborator

moewew commented Mar 28, 2015

Just checked it again, if I use htlatex test, biber test, htlatex test everything works like a charm (I could not use mk4ht because I didn't have a configuration file at hand.).

Did you also make sure that the new version of biblatex.4ht was actually loaded - the .log file reports the version, mine is 2015-02-04-14:23.

@simifilm

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@simifilm

simifilm Mar 28, 2015

Yes, the correct version of biblatex.4ht is loaded. The .bbl file which contains the relevant information is also loaded, but biblatex still insists that the citation Hiemenz is undefined. Which version of biblatex/biber did you use? I use the latest changes from dev branch.

Yes, the correct version of biblatex.4ht is loaded. The .bbl file which contains the relevant information is also loaded, but biblatex still insists that the citation Hiemenz is undefined. Which version of biblatex/biber did you use? I use the latest changes from dev branch.

@moewew

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@moewew

moewew Mar 28, 2015

Collaborator

I use the current release version 2.9a with Biber 1.9. Of course I cannot be sure, but I wouldn't have thought that the changes since 2.9a to the dev branch will have caused such a loss in functionality.
When you say the .bbl file which contains the relevant information was loaded, did you make sure that it at that point contained all the relevant information - I'm not sure about mk4ht, maybe it deletes temporary files before proceeding; as I said above, with htlatex it works fine, did you try that?

Collaborator

moewew commented Mar 28, 2015

I use the current release version 2.9a with Biber 1.9. Of course I cannot be sure, but I wouldn't have thought that the changes since 2.9a to the dev branch will have caused such a loss in functionality.
When you say the .bbl file which contains the relevant information was loaded, did you make sure that it at that point contained all the relevant information - I'm not sure about mk4ht, maybe it deletes temporary files before proceeding; as I said above, with htlatex it works fine, did you try that?

@simifilm

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@simifilm

simifilm Mar 28, 2015

Last time I posted, I tried with htlatex. I just tried it on a second machine with the same result (which is also is on dev branch). You can get the log file here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/qr2zggd7ha4wbvh/teste.log?dl=0

Last time I posted, I tried with htlatex. I just tried it on a second machine with the same result (which is also is on dev branch). You can get the log file here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/qr2zggd7ha4wbvh/teste.log?dl=0

@moewew

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@moewew

moewew Mar 28, 2015

Collaborator

Mhhhh, your .log file heavily suggest that something with the .bbl file went wrong, even though it exists it does not seem to contain the information needed to resolve the citations.
The warnings etc. we then see are then very similar to what one would expect if one didn't run Biber.

Check what's inside the .bbl file.

Other than that you could try and downgrade to release versions of biblatex and Biber and try again, those worked here.

Collaborator

moewew commented Mar 28, 2015

Mhhhh, your .log file heavily suggest that something with the .bbl file went wrong, even though it exists it does not seem to contain the information needed to resolve the citations.
The warnings etc. we then see are then very similar to what one would expect if one didn't run Biber.

Check what's inside the .bbl file.

Other than that you could try and downgrade to release versions of biblatex and Biber and try again, those worked here.

@simifilm

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@simifilm

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@simifilm

simifilm Mar 29, 2015

Ok, it's definitely the changes from dev branch. With biblatex 2.9a everything works as it should.

Ok, it's definitely the changes from dev branch. With biblatex 2.9a everything works as it should.

@moewew

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@moewew

moewew Mar 29, 2015

Collaborator

OK, maybe you want to find out what commit exactly caused the trouble, if you can spare the time.

Collaborator

moewew commented Mar 29, 2015

OK, maybe you want to find out what commit exactly caused the trouble, if you can spare the time.

@plk

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@plk

plk Mar 29, 2015

Owner

I strongly suspect that if tex4ht adapted to the biblatex's new .bbl format a while ago where labelname was explicitly resolved by biber, then the DEV version change where I removed this and now do the resolving in biblatex is to blame. Maybe you can check if tex4ht expects to find an explicit labelname field in the .bbl?

Owner

plk commented Mar 29, 2015

I strongly suspect that if tex4ht adapted to the biblatex's new .bbl format a while ago where labelname was explicitly resolved by biber, then the DEV version change where I removed this and now do the resolving in biblatex is to blame. Maybe you can check if tex4ht expects to find an explicit labelname field in the .bbl?

@moewew

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@moewew

moewew Mar 29, 2015

Collaborator

@simifilm I'm slightly confused about the .bbl file you posted, it states $ biblatex bbl format version 2.4 $, but the dev version of Biber would make that read 2.5 instead, maybe you just ran into trouble because your biblatex and Biber versions are not compatible.

@plk When I made tex4ht run with an empty biblatex.4ht file the output was slightly mangled, but otherwise OK, which makes me suspect that tex4ht does not expect any funny things about the .bbl file or anything else and takes its information right from the proper biblatex front ends.

Collaborator

moewew commented Mar 29, 2015

@simifilm I'm slightly confused about the .bbl file you posted, it states $ biblatex bbl format version 2.4 $, but the dev version of Biber would make that read 2.5 instead, maybe you just ran into trouble because your biblatex and Biber versions are not compatible.

@plk When I made tex4ht run with an empty biblatex.4ht file the output was slightly mangled, but otherwise OK, which makes me suspect that tex4ht does not expect any funny things about the .bbl file or anything else and takes its information right from the proper biblatex front ends.

@simifilm

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@simifilm

simifilm Mar 29, 2015

The irritating format version is probably caused by the fact that the .bbl file changed in the meantime, since I've tried with biblatex 2.9a. Well, I guess we have located the problem. I'm not quite sure though what would be the best way to track down the specific change responsible for it.

The MWE of this bug report was only the beginning for me, so to speak. I have a quite long document which produces all kind of other biblatex errors when I try compile it with tex4ht. But since it relies on a version of biblatex-fiwi which is adapted to biblatex 3.0, hunting bugs becomes a bit difficult ATM.

The irritating format version is probably caused by the fact that the .bbl file changed in the meantime, since I've tried with biblatex 2.9a. Well, I guess we have located the problem. I'm not quite sure though what would be the best way to track down the specific change responsible for it.

The MWE of this bug report was only the beginning for me, so to speak. I have a quite long document which produces all kind of other biblatex errors when I try compile it with tex4ht. But since it relies on a version of biblatex-fiwi which is adapted to biblatex 3.0, hunting bugs becomes a bit difficult ATM.

@moewew

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@moewew

moewew Mar 29, 2015

Collaborator

I thought since you said you use the dev version, you might have pulled it from github, you could then just go back the commits and find out which caused the problem (skipping those that only meddled with localization and documentation). The commit plk mentioned is the one from 2014-12-21, so if you were to pull the 2012-12-14 version and verify that it works and then the 2014-12-23 version and verify that it does not work we could isolate the problem.

Collaborator

moewew commented Mar 29, 2015

I thought since you said you use the dev version, you might have pulled it from github, you could then just go back the commits and find out which caused the problem (skipping those that only meddled with localization and documentation). The commit plk mentioned is the one from 2014-12-21, so if you were to pull the 2012-12-14 version and verify that it works and then the 2014-12-23 version and verify that it does not work we could isolate the problem.

@simifilm

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@simifilm

simifilm Mar 30, 2015

I guess I'm too dumb for git, but I'm not really sure how I can revert to a specific point.

I guess I'm too dumb for git, but I'm not really sure how I can revert to a specific point.

@plk

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@plk

plk Mar 30, 2015

Owner

If you are using the git version and running "Build install" etc. then you can just make sure you are on the DEV branch (git checkout dev) and then checkout the specific commit using the hash mentioned on github. For the 2014-12-21 commit, that's "git checkout 1484ced". You can then "Build install" and when you want to go back to the latest commit of dev, just do "git checkout dev". There is also a nice command "git bisect" which automates finding the commit which broke something (see, for example, http://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Git-Tools-Debugging-with-Git).

Owner

plk commented Mar 30, 2015

If you are using the git version and running "Build install" etc. then you can just make sure you are on the DEV branch (git checkout dev) and then checkout the specific commit using the hash mentioned on github. For the 2014-12-21 commit, that's "git checkout 1484ced". You can then "Build install" and when you want to go back to the latest commit of dev, just do "git checkout dev". There is also a nice command "git bisect" which automates finding the commit which broke something (see, for example, http://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Git-Tools-Debugging-with-Git).

@simifilm

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@simifilm

simifilm May 11, 2015

Just a short update: I was too stupid to exactly find the point where the relevant change was made, but the problem persists with biber 2.1/biblatex 3.0.

There are two additional errors, when running tex4ht which I think are related to biblatex:

! Package biblatex Error: Patching 'ifthen' package failed.

! Package biblatex Error: Patching \MakeUppercase failed.

Just a short update: I was too stupid to exactly find the point where the relevant change was made, but the problem persists with biber 2.1/biblatex 3.0.

There are two additional errors, when running tex4ht which I think are related to biblatex:

! Package biblatex Error: Patching 'ifthen' package failed.

! Package biblatex Error: Patching \MakeUppercase failed.
@simifilm

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@simifilm

simifilm May 11, 2015

I forgot this:

! Package biblatex Error: Patching \MakeLowercase failed.

I forgot this:

! Package biblatex Error: Patching \MakeLowercase failed.
@simifilm

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@simifilm

simifilm Jun 12, 2015

This is fixed on the tex4ht side, see here: https://puszcza.gnu.org.ua/bugs/?252

This is fixed on the tex4ht side, see here: https://puszcza.gnu.org.ua/bugs/?252

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment