Re: ConTeXt Switcher?

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[2]: ConTeXt Switcher?

[Giuseppe Bilotta]

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

> 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.

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

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?

[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[2]: ConTeXt Switcher?

[Hans Hagen]

At 23:06 08/12/2003, Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:
>Monday, December 8, 2003 Bob Kerstetter wrote:
>
> > 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.

both are wrong in the perspective of xml (structured document coding):

   <quotation>Hello World</quotation>, says HAL

is the way to go

Hans  

Re[2]: ConTeXt Switcher?

[Giuseppe Bilotta]

Monday, December 8, 2003 Bob Kerstetter wrote:

> 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.

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.

-- 
Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta