Re: ntg-context digest, Vol 1 #581 - 7 msgs

Re: ntg-context digest, Vol 1 #581 - 7 msgs

[Christopher G. D. Tipper]

> Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 01:27:34 +0100
> From: Giuseppe Bilotta <gip.bilotta@iol.it>
> To: ntg-context@ntg.nl
> Subject: Re[2]: [NTG-context] ConTeXt Switcher?
> Reply-To: ntg-context@ntg.nl
>
> Not that I see the purpose of using Word in the frist place.
> Any decent editor has enough macro power to do the same.
>
> -- 
> Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta

You missed the point. You markup and style your document using Word
stylesheets, and then XML is a matter of search and replace. A hold load
better than a lame text-editor. If Word hadn't got such a stupid macro
installation technology (templates have never been promoted properly by
Micor$oft) this would be routine stuff. It would probably be a pain to
automatically markup tables, and handling image properties is something I
haven't investigated, but as a 50% solution it works for me. As for TOCs and
bibliographies, use Context. btw exactly the same technique works for
generating LaTeX commands. Context is just so much more elegant.

Christopher

Re: Re: ntg-context digest, Vol 1 #581 - 7 msgs

[Giuseppe Bilotta]

Wednesday, December 10, 2003 Christopher G. D. Tipper wrote:

> You missed the point. You markup and style your document using Word
> stylesheets, and then XML is a matter of search and replace. A hold load
> better than a lame text-editor.

Ok, I see what you mean now. In this case OOo is even better,
then :)

-- 
Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta

Re: ConTeXt Switcher?

[Christopher G. D. Tipper]

> Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 01:27:34 +0100
> From: Giuseppe Bilotta <gip.bilotta@iol.it>
> To: ntg-context@ntg.nl
> Subject: Re[2]: [NTG-context] ConTeXt Switcher?
> Reply-To: ntg-context@ntg.nl
>
> Not that I see the purpose of using Word in the frist place.
> Any decent editor has enough macro power to do the same.
>
> -- 
> Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta

You missed the point. You markup and style your document using Word
styles, and then XML is a matter of search and replace. I am not interested
in Word per se, but I find using emacs to insert markup during document
creation gets in the way of my thought processes. This way I can push markup
worries to the editorial stage.

People are fond of pointing out Words vices, and I wouldn't quibble with
arguments about its stability, but it is about time OpenOffice and its ilk
stopped resting on their laurels and started implementing some macro
capability. I notice that AbiWord has a DocBook output format, but how well
integrated this is I don't know.

On Micro$oft's part if they had some real competition a real market in
third-party templates might arrive. As it stands I have a 50% solution that
handles footnotes and lists, but re-distribution is hampered by the way Word
handles its templates and virus worries. Theoretically I could do tables and
limited image markup using the same techniques. Leveraging the visual layout
tools of a word-processor makes so much sense I wonder at the mentality of
people still struggling with text-editors. I have emacs set up on my
machine, but it really looks like back to the future from my point of view.
I use WinEdt when I'm booted into Windows.

btw you can use the same technique to generate native Context markup. It
needs hand-editting, but as a rough draft, this works fine for me, and I
don't have to re-invent the wheel every time I have a new document.

Christopher

Re: Re: ConTeXt Switcher?

[Bob Kerstetter]

Hi Christopher,

On Dec 11, 2003, at 11:16 AM, Christopher G. D. Tipper wrote:

>> Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 01:27:34 +0100
>> From: Giuseppe Bilotta <gip.bilotta@iol.it>
>> To: ntg-context@ntg.nl
>> Subject: Re[2]: [NTG-context] ConTeXt Switcher?
>> Reply-To: ntg-context@ntg.nl
>>
>> Not that I see the purpose of using Word in the frist place.
>> Any decent editor has enough macro power to do the same.
>>
>> -- 
>> Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta
>
> You missed the point. You markup and style your document using Word
> styles, and then XML is a matter of search and replace. I am not 
> interested
> in Word per se, but I find using emacs to insert markup during document
> creation gets in the way of my thought processes. This way I can push 
> markup
> worries to the editorial stage.
>
> People are fond of pointing out Words vices, and I wouldn't quibble 
> with
> arguments about its stability, but it is about time OpenOffice and its 
> ilk
> stopped resting on their laurels and started implementing some macro
> capability. I notice that AbiWord has a DocBook output format, but how 
> well
> integrated this is I don't know.
>
> On Micro$oft's part if they had some real competition a real market in
> third-party templates might arrive. As it stands I have a 50% solution 
> that
> handles footnotes and lists, but re-distribution is hampered by the 
> way Word
> handles its templates and virus worries. Theoretically I could do 
> tables and
> limited image markup using the same techniques. Leveraging the visual 
> layout
> tools of a word-processor makes so much sense I wonder at the 
> mentality of
> people still struggling with text-editors. I have emacs set up on my
> machine, but it really looks like back to the future from my point of 
> view.
> I use WinEdt when I'm booted into Windows.
>
> btw you can use the same technique to generate native Context markup. 
> It
> needs hand-editting, but as a rough draft, this works fine for me, and 
> I
> don't have to re-invent the wheel every time I have a new document.
>

You're point is well taken. I once wrote a complete Windows Help system 
generator using Word Basic macros and nothing else. If fed correctly 
structured documents, the macros would mark up all topics for display, 
page browsing, cross references, context sensitivity and indexes. It 
would then call the compiler. It took about 40 minutes to markup and 
compile a help system equivalent to 400 pages of text, graphics and 
all, on 1993-era Windows machines. The macros could also clean the 
files and start over if major changes were needed in the text. It was a 
freebie and efficient alternative to RoboHelp.

I have just lost too much work to Word-corrupt files and Word-crashed 
systems to continue with MS. TeXShop (Mac OS X) has never crashed or 
hung in 15 months of use. The files have never become corrupt. I am 
looking at Nisus, or perhaps the OS X native TextEdit, as visual 
editors for the reasons you applaud Word. They both write rtf natively. 
I'm also looking at TeX4ht with ConTeXt. For now, TeXShop, LaTeX and 
TeX4ht are more flexible and stable than Word. We'll see. :)

Take care.

BK

Re: ConTeXt Switcher?

[Berend de Boer]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Giuseppe Bilotta <gip.bilotta@iol.it> writes:

> I agree with you. Productive editing of XML document requires
> specialized editors, and I still haven't found an (open source)
> one that was up to the task. Vex is quite promising, in this
> regard.

It is called emacs and the XML mode is nxml (James Clarke). Produce a
Relax NG schema, and you will be blown away.

- -- 
Live long and prosper,

Berend de Boer
(PGP public key: http://www.pobox.com/~berend/berend-public-key.txt)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>

iD8DBQE/2AMmIyuuaiRyjTYRAkyEAJ0bmvlmVMoozMdotwMjvGxlHW2QwgCg0xta
dzeXiKiNLjJh3deKbyqQR/Y=
=lpL3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: ConTeXt Switcher?

[Bruce D'Arcus]

someone (not sure who) said:
> I know XML source should work, but at least for me, creating XML source 
> is unproductive.  I work with a text editor and find writing this:
> 
> ``Hello world,'' says HAL.
> 
> much more productive than writing this:
> 
> <p>&#8220;Hello world&#8221;</p>, says HAL.
> 
> Maybe I'm missing something, but for writing, XML's markup requirements 
> -- which are invisible to field-based data entry screen -- are way too 
> intense for hand-editing. TeX source is much less verbose. It is easier 
> to create, proof (both visually and audibly),  spell check 
> troubleshoot, etc. I have not seen an editor capable of doing XML 
> source in a productive manner, like (La)TeX with text editor.

You're missing something.  For one, your above example would be:

<p><q>Hello world</q>, says HAL.</p>

Second, try something like nXML mode for emacs, or the XML plug-in for
jEdit.  Real-time markup validation, tag-completion, spell-checking,
etc.

Finally, you're missing the biggest point of all: XML is about reuse.
You cleanly separate markup from presentation so that -- among other
things -- you can trivially transform that to different output.

Bruce 

Re: ConTeXt Switcher?

[Bob Kerstetter]

On Dec 9, 2003, at 5:39 PM, Christopher G D Tipper wrote:

>> On Dec 8, 2003, at 2:33 PM, Henning Hraban Ramm wrote:
>>
>>> Am Montag, 08.12.03, um 18:20 Uhr (Europe/Zurich) schrieb Bob
>>> Kerstetter:
>>>> ConTeXt is very attractive because of its detailed control, layers,
>>>> colors, few or no packages(!!!!!), magical developers, and on and 
>>>> on.
>>>> It can obvious produce PDF. Can it also produce HTML and Word from
>>>> the same document?
>>>
>>> The normal way to get both PDF and HTML is using a XML source.
>>> You know of ConTeXts native XML mode?
>>> AFAIK you can import XML or HTML into MS Office, too, so you need no
>>> real Word DOC output.
>>> Or perhaps there's an other XML to RTF/DOC Konverter...
>>
>> I know XML source should work, but at least for me, creating XML 
>> source
>> is unproductive.  I work with a text editor and find writing this:
>>
>> ``Hello world,'' says HAL.
>>
>> much more productive than writing this:
>>
>> <p>&#8220;Hello world&#8221;</p>, says HAL.
>>
>> Maybe I'm missing something, but for writing, XML's markup 
>> requirements
>> -- which are invisible to field-based data entry screen -- are way 
>> too 
>> intense for hand-editing. TeX source is much less verbose. It is 
>> easier
>> to create, proof (both visually and audibly),  spell check
>> troubleshoot, etc. I have not seen an editor capable of doing XML
>> source in a productive manner, like (La)TeX with text editor.
>
> This is probably taboo, but surely the smart thing to do is start from 
> Word, generate some XML with macros, and produce some HTML with 
> stylesheets, some PDF with ConTeXt. BTW you can generate some simple 
> Context with VB macros and hand-edit -- saves a whole load of mundane 
> stuff. I can go from a web page to PDF in under 15 minutes using the 
> Word macros I have for Context.

Thanks for the suggestion.

I don't really have a problem with Word for writing letters and the 
like. For large docs, however, it's just too unpredictable. Images move 
around. Numbered lists break. Cross references change. Formatting blows 
up if you even look at an end-paragraph mark (where all the paragraph 
info is stored). Styles revert to their defaults. Word crashes, often. 
My main source documents would be in a proprietary file format known 
for its tendencies toward corruption. I used Word for 15 years and it's 
just too much pain. My schedules are too tight to trust it.

But least I sound like an MS basher, Word TOCs and Tables are 
excellent. Mail merge to email using MAPI it cool. And I did once write 
a complete Windows help system generator using only Word Basic. This 
was before VBA, before you had to be an OO programmer to write Word 
macros. :)

These days I keep Word for Windows safety contained in a Mac OS X 
Remote Desktop Connection window. ;-)

Re: ConTeXt Switcher?

[Christopher G D Tipper]

> On Dec 8, 2003, at 2:33 PM, Henning Hraban Ramm wrote:
> 
> > Am Montag, 08.12.03, um 18:20 Uhr (Europe/Zurich) schrieb Bob 
> > Kerstetter:
> >> ConTeXt is very attractive because of its detailed control, layers, 
> >> colors, few or no packages(!!!!!), magical developers, and on and on. 
> >> It can obvious produce PDF. Can it also produce HTML and Word from 
> >> the same document?
> >
> > The normal way to get both PDF and HTML is using a XML source.
> > You know of ConTeXts native XML mode?
> > AFAIK you can import XML or HTML into MS Office, too, so you need no 
> > real Word DOC output.
> > Or perhaps there's an other XML to RTF/DOC Konverter...
> 
> I know XML source should work, but at least for me, creating XML source 
> is unproductive.  I work with a text editor and find writing this:
> 
> ``Hello world,'' says HAL.
> 
> much more productive than writing this:
> 
> <p>&#8220;Hello world&#8221;</p>, says HAL.
> 
> Maybe I'm missing something, but for writing, XML's markup requirements 
> -- which are invisible to field-based data entry screen -- are way too 
> intense for hand-editing. TeX source is much less verbose. It is easier 
> to create, proof (both visually and audibly),  spell check 
> troubleshoot, etc. I have not seen an editor capable of doing XML 
> source in a productive manner, like (La)TeX with text editor. 

This is probably taboo, but surely the smart thing to do is start from Word, generate some XML with macros, and produce some HTML with stylesheets, some PDF with ConTeXt. BTW you can generate some simple Context with VB macros and hand-edit -- saves a whole load of mundane stuff. I can go from a web page to PDF in under 15 minutes using the Word macros I have for Context.

Christopher


--------------------------------o00o--------------------------------
  “Since light travels faster than sound, isn’t that why 
   some people appear bright until you hear them speak” 
                                          — Steve Wright

Re: ConTeXt Switcher?

[Bob Kerstetter]

On Dec 8, 2003, at 2:33 PM, Henning Hraban Ramm wrote:

> Am Montag, 08.12.03, um 18:20 Uhr (Europe/Zurich) schrieb Bob 
> Kerstetter:
>> ConTeXt is very attractive because of its detailed control, layers, 
>> colors, few or no packages(!!!!!), magical developers, and on and on. 
>> It can obvious produce PDF. Can it also produce HTML and Word from 
>> the same document?
>
> The normal way to get both PDF and HTML is using a XML source.
> You know of ConTeXts native XML mode?
> AFAIK you can import XML or HTML into MS Office, too, so you need no 
> real Word DOC output.
> Or perhaps there's an other XML to RTF/DOC Konverter...

I know XML source should work, but at least for me, creating XML source 
is unproductive.  I work with a text editor and find writing this:

``Hello world,'' says HAL.

much more productive than writing this:

<p>&#8220;Hello world&#8221;</p>, says HAL.

Maybe I'm missing something, but for writing, XML's markup requirements 
-- which are invisible to field-based data entry screen -- are way too 
intense for hand-editing. TeX source is much less verbose. It is easier 
to create, proof (both visually and audibly),  spell check 
troubleshoot, etc. I have not seen an editor capable of doing XML 
source in a productive manner, like (La)TeX with text editor. 
OmniOutliner for OS X is close to being close, but too far from the 
goal to use. Is there some "special thing" I don't know? ???

Thanks.

Bob Kerstetter
http://homepage.mac.com/bkerstetter/

Re: ConTeXt Switcher?

[Bob Kerstetter]

On Dec 8, 2003, at 12:55 PM, Peter Münster wrote:

> On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, Bob Kerstetter wrote:
>
>> It can obvious produce PDF. Can it also produce HTML and Word from the
>> same document?
>
> Hello,
> I like TeX4ht for LaTeX. It would be great, if TeX4ht and ConTeXt work
> together. It seems, that it works well with plain-TeX, so why not with
> ConTeXt?

TeX4ht is excellent. It's what I use for LaTeX to HTML and Word (via 
HTML convertion). It would require writing a custom configuration file 
to make it work with ConTeXt. I could be done, I just don't know how to 
do it. I have tried repeated to understand TeX4ht's conversion, but 
have never succeeded.

Re: ConTeXt Switcher?

[Henning Hraban Ramm]

Am Montag, 08.12.03, um 18:20 Uhr (Europe/Zurich) schrieb Bob 
Kerstetter:
> ConTeXt is very attractive because of its detailed control, layers, 
> colors, few or no packages(!!!!!), magical developers, and on and on. 
> It can obvious produce PDF. Can it also produce HTML and Word from the 
> same document?

The normal way to get both PDF and HTML is using a XML source.
You know of ConTeXts native XML mode?
AFAIK you can import XML or HTML into MS Office, too, so you need no 
real Word DOC output.
Or perhaps there's an other XML to RTF/DOC Konverter...

Grüßlis vom Hraban!
-- 
http://www.fiee.net/texnique/

Re: ConTeXt Switcher?

[Peter Münster]

On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, Bob Kerstetter wrote:

> It can obvious produce PDF. Can it also produce HTML and Word from the
> same document?

Hello,
I like TeX4ht for LaTeX. It would be great, if TeX4ht and ConTeXt work
together. It seems, that it works well with plain-TeX, so why not with
ConTeXt?
Peter

-- 
http://pmrb.free.fr/contact/
------------------------------------
Film Search site: http://f-s.sf.net/

ConTeXt Switcher?

[Bob Kerstetter]

Hello ConTeXt Users,

I have been using LaTeX for 15 months or so. From one source document I 
am able to produce:

1. PDF
2. HTML
3. Word (via HTML conversion)

ConTeXt is very attractive because of its detailed control, layers, 
colors, few or no packages(!!!!!), magical developers, and on and on. 
It can obvious produce PDF. Can it also produce HTML and Word from the 
same document?

Thanks,

Bob Kerstetter
http://homepage.mac.com/bkerstetter/