beginner's questions

beginner's questions

[Michael Na Li]

I've used LaTeX for several years but am new to ConTeXt.  Here are a couple
questions I had:

1.  With m-bib module, how can I achieve \nocite{} (no citation but have the
    reference listed in the end) as in LaTeX?  

2.  Is there a command similar to \section*{} effect (no numbering of the
    section)?

Michael

Re: beginner's questions

[Michael Na Li]

>>>>> On Fri, 27 Sep 2002 14:14:05 -0700, Michael Na Li <lina@u.washington.edu> said:

Michael> 2.  Is there a command similar to \section*{} effect (no numbering of
Michael>     the section)?

Found the answer myself :).  Either use \subject or
\setuphead[section][number=no].

New questions pop up, though.  The following example doesn't work because of
the "textstyle" option (gives some cryptic error messages).  After textstyle
is removed, it does compile but the section title is not aligned to the right.
Is it because my ConTeXt (ConTeXt  ver: 2002.1.28  fmt: 2002.7.15  int:
english  mes: english) is older than the manual (the English version, just
downloaded a couple of days ago)?

===============================

\setuphead
    [section]
    [align=right,
     textstyle=cap]

\starttext

\section{a test}

Some test text.

\stoptext

================================

Cheers,

Michael

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Na Li                               
Email: lina@u.washington.edu
Department of Biostatistics, Box 357232
University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195  
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: beginner's questions

[Jens-Uwe Morawski]

On Fri, 27 Sep 2002 14:14:05 -0700
Michael Na Li <lina@u.washington.edu> wrote:

> 
> I've used LaTeX for several years but am new to ConTeXt.  Here are a couple
> questions I had:
> 
> 1.  With m-bib module, how can I achieve \nocite{} (no citation but have the
>     reference listed in the end) as in LaTeX?  

sorry, i don't know. You could limit your bib-entries to the entries
needed. Then you can set \setuppublications[criterium=all].

> 2.  Is there a command similar to \section*{} effect (no numbering of the
>     section)?

\subject

Jens

Re: beginner's questions

[Michael Na Li]

>>>>> On Sat, 28 Sep 2002 11:35:06 +0200, Jens-Uwe Morawski <morawski@gmx.net> said:
Jens-Uwe> On Fri, 27 Sep 2002 14:14:05 -0700
Jens-Uwe> Michael Na Li <lina@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>> 
>> I've used LaTeX for several years but am new to ConTeXt.  Here are a couple
>> questions I had:
>> 
>> 1.  With m-bib module, how can I achieve \nocite{} (no citation but have the
>> reference listed in the end) as in LaTeX?  

Jens-Uwe> sorry, i don't know. You could limit your bib-entries to the entries
Jens-Uwe> needed. Then you can set \setuppublications[criterium=all].

I use \setupbibtex[] (which is great since many people will probably need hang
on to their bib files) to use external bib files.  It is a lot of trouble
having to modify those bib files.

Michael

Re: beginner's questions

[Henning Hraban Ramm]

Am Freitag, 27. September 2002 23:14 schrieb Michael Na Li:
> 2.  Is there a command similar to \section*{} effect (no numbering of the
>     section)?

Look at "ms-cb-en.pdf" or the manual!
ConTeXt has different sets for numbered and unnumbered headers:
\chapter		\title
\section		\subject
\subsection	\subsubject
...			...
The unnumbered (right) doesn't show up in tocs etc.
If you need headers without numbering that show up in tocs, you need to setup 
them with e.g.
\setuphead		[chapter]
			[number=no, % no numbering 
			page=yes,	% new page at chapter
			style={\ss\bfd},	% sans serif bold
			align=right,	% left aligned(!), right means "raggedright"
			color=red]

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

Re: beginner's questions

[Taco Hoekwater]

For 1., you need something like this:

\def\nocite#1{\setbox0\hbox{\cite[#1]}}

On Fri, 27 Sep 2002 14:14:05 -0700, Michael wrote:

> 
> I've used LaTeX for several years but am new to ConTeXt.  Here are a couple
> questions I had:
> 
> 1.  With m-bib module, how can I achieve \nocite{} (no citation but have the
>     reference listed in the end) as in LaTeX?  
> 
> 2.  Is there a command similar to \section*{} effect (no numbering of the
>     section)?
> 
> Michael

-- 
groeten,

Taco

m-bib features (was: Re: beginner's questions)

[Jens-Uwe Morawski]

On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 10:11:48 +0200
Taco Hoekwater <taco@elvenkind.com> wrote:

> 
> For 1., you need something like this:
> 
> \def\nocite#1{\setbox0\hbox{\cite[#1]}}

Ooh no, sometimes it could be sooo easy! :)

Taco, AFAiK, you have ask some time ago for features of your
new bib-module. Two things i'm still missing is support for
interactive documents:
1: \cite creates a link to bib-entry
2: in the bibliography after each entry there is a list
   of pages where this entry is referenced (in a interactive
   document these page numbers are links too)

Is it possible to implement these features?

Thanks in advance.

Jens

Re: m-bib features (was: Re: beginner's questions)

[Bruce D'Arcus]

On Monday, September 30, 2002, at 05:52 AM, Jens-Uwe Morawski wrote:

> Taco, AFAiK, you have ask some time ago for features of your
> new bib-module. Two things i'm still missing is support for
> interactive documents:
> 1: \cite creates a link to bib-entry
> 2: in the bibliography after each entry there is a list
>    of pages where this entry is referenced (in a interactive
>    document these page numbers are links too)

I agree links (back-and-forth) would be good (as it would be with 
endnotes, come to think of it, and for footnotes, though less so).  
I've never seen an example of #2, but it seems to intrude into the area 
of indexing...

Bruce

Re: m-bib features (was: Re: beginner's questions)

[Hans Hagen]

At 10:40 AM 9/30/2002 -0400, you wrote:

>On Monday, September 30, 2002, at 05:52 AM, Jens-Uwe Morawski wrote:
>
>>Taco, AFAiK, you have ask some time ago for features of your
>>new bib-module. Two things i'm still missing is support for
>>interactive documents:
>>1: \cite creates a link to bib-entry
>>2: in the bibliography after each entry there is a list
>>    of pages where this entry is referenced (in a interactive
>>    document these page numbers are links too)
>
>I agree links (back-and-forth) would be good (as it would be with 
>endnotes, come to think of it, and for footnotes, though less so).
>I've never seen an example of #2, but it seems to intrude into the area of 
>indexing...

i can have a look at the links as soon as the new version of m-bib is out

Hans

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE | pragma@wxs.nl
                       Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
  tel: +31 (0)38 477 53 69 | fax: +31 (0)38 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        information: http://www.pragma-ade.com/roadmap.pdf
                     documentation: http://www.pragma-ade.com/showcase.pdf
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: m-bib features (was: Re: beginner's questions)

[Michael Na Li]

>>>>> On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 11:52:09 +0200, Jens-Uwe Morawski <morawski@gmx.net> said:

Jens-Uwe> Taco, AFAiK, you have ask some time ago for features of your
Jens-Uwe> new bib-module. Two things i'm still missing is support for
Jens-Uwe> interactive documents:
Jens-Uwe> 1: \cite creates a link to bib-entry
Jens-Uwe> 2: in the bibliography after each entry there is a list
Jens-Uwe>    of pages where this entry is referenced (in a interactive
Jens-Uwe>    document these page numbers are links too)

As long as we are requesting features.

Since nowadays many articles are available online, in fact, some of them are
online only (e.g. many conference proceedings), it would be nice to have the
bib entry linked to its online version.  It is probably very easy to implement
for m-bib publications but would be nice to work with the url or pdf bib-items
in a bib file too.

Michael

Re: m-bib features (was: Re: beginner's questions)

[Taco Hoekwater]

Just a quick reply to let you all know I *am* collecting these requests

On Tue, 01 Oct 2002 13:32:48 -0700, Michael wrote:

> >>>>> On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 11:52:09 +0200, Jens-Uwe Morawski <morawski@gmx.net> said:
> 
> Jens-Uwe> Taco, AFAiK, you have ask some time ago for features of your
> Jens-Uwe> new bib-module. Two things i'm still missing is support for
> Jens-Uwe> interactive documents:
> Jens-Uwe> 1: \cite creates a link to bib-entry
> Jens-Uwe> 2: in the bibliography after each entry there is a list
> Jens-Uwe>    of pages where this entry is referenced (in a interactive
> Jens-Uwe>    document these page numbers are links too)
> 
> As long as we are requesting features.
> 
> Since nowadays many articles are available online, in fact, some of them are
> online only (e.g. many conference proceedings), it would be nice to have the
> bib entry linked to its online version.  It is probably very easy to implement
> for m-bib publications but would be nice to work with the url or pdf bib-items
> in a bib file too.
> 
> Michael

-- 
groeten,

Taco

Re: beginner's questions

[Christopher Tipper]

Frans Goddijn writes 11-11-2000:

> I wish I could order The ConTeXt manual somewhere, finished,
> complete, with examples, nicely bound ;-)) But we have to wait

I too like nicely bound books, but I find that I have been using Context for nearly a year and I've never had to print anything. This says a lot about Hans' design efforts as much as the PDF features. The only manual I have had problems navigating is the Beginners Manual, compounded by the fact that page numbers are not aligned with the PDF.

Also the fact that the manuals are not finished is good as well as bad. OK, so we don't have everything at our finger tips, but Hans is the only tech support guy I know who will 'rewrite' the software if we have a problem. He doesn't get enough thanks to be honest, but I'm sure the VCs will be knocking soon! :-) 

Hopefully, eventually the package will stabilise, but I don't think Adobe have finished designing PDF, so it is too much to hope that we have all the features 'right-now'. And lets not forget to give credit to the module authors. Taco has done some fine stuff with the m-bib module, and with this addition Context becomes a complete replacement for latex with many of the desirable features of plain-TeX thrown in in a nicely abstracted way. Thank you!

Best wishes,
Christopher

Re: beginner's questions

[siepo]

On 13 Nov, Hans Hagen wrote:
> At 06:34 PM 11/11/00 +0100, siepo@client44-3.kabelA.oprit.rug.nl wrote:
> 
>>the internal space-eating dummy parameters.
> 
> The overhead of the interface is not that large, since mapping
> key/values on \cs's is rather efficient [actually this is how it
> started in order to fit context in those smaller tex's]

The point I tried to make was that it makes the internal code messier.

>>In practice, I need to write just as much plain TeX with Context as
>>with LaTeX, and I need to ask a lot more questions in order to get the
>>job done. And in Context I encounter just as many mysterious goings-on
>>as in LaTeX.
> 
> That's true as soon as you want control over every aspect of the
> layout. I fear that there is no way out of this, apart from providing
> as many hooks as needed.

The hooks are also a nice thing of Context, although it often takes
quite a bit of trial and error to make something work.

>>I use Context when I have to, but in general I much prefer LaTeX.
>>
>>Two things in favour of Context: other than LaTeX, it is capable of
>>producing a tight column layout. Also, Hans is very responsive and
> 
> Then I hope that you will not hate the alternative multi column
> mechanism I'm working on now -)

Keep your fingers crossed...

Siep

Re: beginner's questions

[Hans Hagen]

At 07:56 PM 11/12/00 +0100, Denis B. Roegel wrote:

>only the knowledge found in the metafun manual), but the main thing
>that annoyed me was the sometimes lack of clear diagnostic
>in case of errors (either in my installation or in what I typed,

Diagnostics are very hard to implement in a macro language like tex,
especially since error recovery is nearly impossible. However, when someone
finds a place where a status message can help, please let me know and I'll
add it. 

There are a few low level tracing options, but so far they have not yet be
documented. Tracing of key/value handling is very time and memory demanding
but can make it into future versions. 

>see the series of messages I sent recently). This of course is
>made more difficult by the fact that context is evolving,
>since one can make a mistake when updating his/her installation.

I must admit that bringing new features into the open is quite dangerous.
Although the basics of metapost inclusion are there for some time now, the
new features are new indeed, and therefore kind of beta. This is
complicated by the fact that support for mp in tex distributions is nearly
nil, so there texexec cum suis have to handle it all.  

>But I am confident many or all of these problems will vanish
>eventually.

With the help/input of users they will eventually vanish. Keep in mind that
it is not always easy to foresee what users do on their systems, and
although texmf tree's are more and more standardized, differences remain.
Fonts for instance will always be kind of messy.    

>It must also be said that the quality of context is quite
>stunning, given that it is used by a very small number of (free) people.
>But there may be many people who use it through pragma, and I guess
>they helped shape context into what it has become. And the fact
>that people are paid for it has certainly something to do with it.

A bit of history: 

- Pragma is currently two people; we hire hands when needed, and have an
association with an it-company.

- We originate in educational technology, and we may safely assume that
people working for us have no computer skils as demanded by tex. 

- When we started using tex, we looked into latex first [actually, we
bought it from aw] and since we wanted dutch labels and so we ended up in
kind of messy and not-understood patches. So we started writing a small
wrapper [not even knowning what macros actually were]

- Before we made the definitive decission, we looked into professional
publishing systems, but finally decided to go on with tex. 

- Since we had to pay for updates and even hyphenation patterns [indeed, we
were not on any internet] we looked into other tex macro packages, like
amstex, lamstex an inrstex. I think that we spend some thousands of
guilders on bying licences and manuals. 

- Lamstex looked very promissing, and I never understood why this more
configurable latex alternative never made it [i must have a few manuals
somewhere]. We used it a couple of month, after which we switched to
inrstex. This latter package had pretty good defaults, and was quite
configurable. Some of the context defaults stem from inrstex. 

- When writing educational material [which in many aspects can have quite
complicated typo] we wanted to have more control over structure and
automate as much as possible. 

- The basic idea is: no manual intervention, so 'no user supplied vskips'
and 'no manual page breaks'. A lot of effort went into spacing, and we're
still improving that bit. Another idea is abstraction, which is why right
from the start there were mechanisms for abbreviations and block reuse.

- This means that for using context to the full extend, you have to start
from scratch. Think of what you need [which will happen when you key in the
same thing for the tenth time] and look if there is an easy way. This is
how context evolved: people coming to me and asking for simple less time
consuming methods. The first users were those who never \def'ed a macro,
didn't know anything about fonts etc.  

- When context went public, and when this list was started, people started
asking for features. Given that we need context for rather complicated
documents, you may assume that there are more features than currently
covered in the manual. Many of them are still in development, so I can
choose: either say 'it can't be done' or just reveal the details. I've
chosen for the latter at teh cost of complaints about lack of documentation.  

- There is only a limited amount of functionality that can be hard coded.
This is why there are hooks. There are for instance some 10 table of
content configs, but one can implement his/her own. Experienced tex users
will do so, but at the same time will have the automatisms available deep
down. [Believe me, there are gory details no sound person wants to know, i
may describe them in more fundamental discussions about functionality.]  

- The multi lingual user interface is there for a good reason: non
technical users. We want to be be able to assign tasks with regards to
entering tex documents [and even changing layout specs] to virtually
everyone, but especially people with no math / tex / computer background.   

- Documentation is an ongoing process. When working on the ref manual [the
new one] i decided to split off metapost graphic in a separate manual. I
will do the same with interactive documents, which will be combined with
designing layouts, since thiose layouts are the most demanding. The ref
manual will then only cover the basics. The complete interface will be
covered in the interface documentation.  

- One problem that people will encounter when using context aside latex or
any tex, is that they need to forget things. As soon as you start looking
for similar things, you will not easilly find them. The reason is that
stucturing documents is the starting point and not so much designing them.
Here we use context for collections of [often large] educational documents,
and there we want for instance a 500 page document with 400 figures to be
processed without any manual intervention in often more than one
incarnation. Or, a collection of quality assurance manual, made up out of a
multitude of procedures, with flow charts and so, with extensive cross
referencing, tocs at every level, a high level of data abstraction [no
name, function, number or id is coded more than once]. Or, a recently
started project, a math school method to be developped by a team of
teachers, with a broad range of products, and therefore extensive reuse of
resources. Most of the context features deal with those issues and in
detail typo control [which for instance siep wants] is actually the second
agenda. This control also depends on the level of module documentation. For
instance, core-rul, is a good example of a finished and stable module,
which in my opinion is also documented in an acceptable way. On the other
hand, the otr, output routine and spacing engine, is still not fully
finished and documented. It will be since i;m working on it now. As an
example, i just implemented, willy egger may like that, multi column spread
control, with page imposition support for figures or whatever spanning a
page and so. Now this is no easy topic and will never be, even if i write
500 pages about it. -) 

- Whatever is implemented, using tex (context) as a dtp system is always
complicated. No matter how many hooks are provided.  

- So, don't consider context finished yet, but you may enjoy [or hate] it
nevertheless,  

Hans    
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
                      Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
 tel: +31 (0)38 477 53 69 | fax: +31 (0)38 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: beginner's questions

[Hans Hagen]

At 06:34 PM 11/11/00 +0100, siepo@client44-3.kabelA.oprit.rug.nl wrote:

>the internal space-eating dummy parameters.

The overhead of the interface is not that large, since mapping key/values
on \cs's is rather efficient [actually this is how it started in order to
fit context in those smaller tex's]

>In practice, I need to write just as much plain TeX with Context as with
>LaTeX, and I need to ask a lot more questions in order to get the job
>done. And in Context I encounter just as many mysterious goings-on as in
>LaTeX.

That's true as soon as you want control over every aspect of the layout. I
fear that there is no way out of this, apart from providing as many hooks
as needed. 

>I use Context when I have to, but in general I much prefer LaTeX.
>
>Two things in favour of Context: other than LaTeX, it is capable of
>producing a tight column layout. Also, Hans is very responsive and

Then I hope that you will not hate the alternative multi column mechanism
I'm working on now -) 

Hans

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
                      Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
 tel: +31 (0)38 477 53 69 | fax: +31 (0)38 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: beginner's questions

[Denis B. Roegel]

`siepo@client44-3.kabelA.oprit.rug.nl' wrote
>   
>   On 11 Nov, Berend de Boer wrote:
>   > siepo@client44-3.kabelA.oprit.rug.nl wrote:
>   > 
>   >> A dissenting voice: I don't think Context is easier than LaTeX. 
>   > 
>   > Hai Siep,
>   > 
>   > How many years of LaTeX experience do you have?
>   
>   In my first year with LaTeX, I designed a custom stylefile, even without
>   the benefit of the LaTeX Companion.
>   
>   >> One
>   >> stumbling block is the documentation - there is a lot of it, but I
>   >> find it hard to find my way around in it -
>   > 
>   > I can't believe the latex docs are better. And consistency across the
>   > (docs of the) many packages??

I am certainly not the right person to comment on this,
as I have 9 years of experience with tex (& latex, mf, etc.),
6 or 7 years with mpost, and very little with context (of which I have
only the knowledge found in the metafun manual), but the main thing
that annoyed me was the sometimes lack of clear diagnostic
in case of errors (either in my installation or in what I typed,
see the series of messages I sent recently). This of course is
made more difficult by the fact that context is evolving,
since one can make a mistake when updating his/her installation.
But I am confident many or all of these problems will vanish
eventually.

It must also be said that the quality of context is quite
stunning, given that it is used by a very small number of (free) people.
But there may be many people who use it through pragma, and I guess
they helped shape context into what it has become. And the fact
that people are paid for it has certainly something to do with it.

Denis Roegel

Re: beginner's questions

[siepo]

On 11 Nov, Berend de Boer wrote:
> siepo@client44-3.kabelA.oprit.rug.nl wrote:
> 
>> A dissenting voice: I don't think Context is easier than LaTeX. 
> 
> Hai Siep,
> 
> How many years of LaTeX experience do you have?

In my first year with LaTeX, I designed a custom stylefile, even without
the benefit of the LaTeX Companion.

>> One
>> stumbling block is the documentation - there is a lot of it, but I
>> find it hard to find my way around in it -
> 
> I can't believe the latex docs are better. And consistency across the
> (docs of the) many packages??

Lamports book is concise and to the point. If you can't find something 
there then you can be pretty sure that it is not a built-in user-level 
command or parameter. The guides for the graphics package and the guide 
for class and package writers are models of good documentation.

> But could you be a bit more specific about "hard to find my way around
> it." Because that is at least true for one person in this world, and
> if there is one there are more. So if you can (try to) formulate what
> kind of documentation would have helped you, perhaps this situation
> can be improved.

On the other hand: my first attempt at Context stranded when I tried to
figure out from the beginners manual how to include a figure. When I got
my hands on the regular manual, I had high hopes that now I would have
formal and complete documentation. However, nothing could be further
from the truth: time and again, documentation on parameters is
incomplete. Try to figure out from the official documentation how to set
linespacing for a fontsize. Recall also our discussion on this list on
the syntax of parameter values.

My second attempt at Context stranded due to competing demands on my
time. My third attempt resulted in a set of very basic sample files
(www.pragma-ade.com/pragma-ade/third/siep/samples.zip). It required
quite a bit of correspondence with Hans to complete this set, and I left
various issues unsolved because I was not working towards a specific
layout.

Nowadays, when I am working on existing Context code, with the sources,
the manual, the texshow utility and tons of testfiles all at hand, I
only need to ask Taco every other time how something is supposed to work
in Context.

One problem with the documentation is its informality: it presents
commands and a sometimes incomplete list of parameters. Instead of a
description of all parameters, there is only a series of examples, which
typically don't include the feature I am looking for.

Other problems are really problems of Context itself: there is more of
it than can be documented in a finite amount of time, and some things
are oddly named (e.g. right- and left alignment) or oddly organized
(e.g. you need to define some aspects of page layout via the
\setuppagenumbering macro).

> Groetjes,
> 
> Berend. (-:
> 

Siep

Re: beginner's questions

[Berend de Boer]

siepo@client44-3.kabelA.oprit.rug.nl wrote:

> A dissenting voice: I don't think Context is easier than LaTeX. 

Hai Siep,

How many years of LaTeX experience do you have?

> One
> stumbling block is the documentation - there is a lot of it, but I find
> it hard to find my way around in it - 

I can't believe the latex docs are better. And consistency across the
(docs of the) many packages??

But could you be a bit more specific about "hard to find my way around
it." Because that is at least true for one person in this world, and if
there is one there are more. So if you can (try to) formulate what kind
of documentation would have helped you, perhaps this situation can be
improved.

Groetjes,

Berend. (-:

Re: beginner's questions

[Frans Goddijn]

> A dissenting voice: I don't think Context is easier than LaTeX.
One
> stumbling block is the documentation - there is a lot of it,
but I find

Quite tolerable voice ;-)) I agree insofar as I have to get used
to the documentation and often things look so simple that I see
right through the transparancy and make things unnecessarily
complicated for myself. If I get something to work and I show my
source file to Hans, he shows me that the same can be done with
90% less effort.

I wish I could order The ConTeXt manual somewhere, finished,
complete, with examples, nicely bound ;-)) But we have to wait
until it's finished and it seems there's a race going on: ConTeXt
gets new features, calling for an update on the manual and while
the manual gets updates, nearing the End, ConTeXt gets more new
features documented in an exciting sub-manual which will
eventually be inserted in the Big Manual...

> Two things in favour of Context: other than LaTeX, it is
capable of
> producing a tight column layout. Also, Hans is very responsive
and
> helpful when you have a problem.

Which makes it fun to use, and this forum is very much alive with
people doing new things. I can't say I can follow all the codings
at all that I see passing and I call myself lucky for not needing
to be on the cutting edge ;-}}

Groet!

Frans

Re: beginner's questions

[siepo]

On  9 Nov, Ed L Cashin wrote:
> Hans Hagen <pragma@wxs.nl> writes:
> 
>> >- Most of the work I plan to make with context are small (<20pages)
>> >  reports. Mostly text with some tables and pictures, and a few
>> >  graphs. Is context the program to handle this, or should I choose
>> >  latex? After a quick look at the docs, it seems context is easier
>> >  to do most things. Is this correct?
>> 
>> that's for others to answer -) 
> 
> The possible conditions for choosing LaTeX over ConTeXt that come to
> mind are these:
> 
>   * if your publisher requires it
> 
>   * if you must collaborate with latex users on a document
> 
>   * if you do no unusual documents, only math papers and physics
>     papers (then you won't notice the incompatibilities and
>     limitations as much)
> 
> ... but then again, there are a lot of LaTeX features that I don't
> use, since I only produce English-language documents, so I don't know
> about much of the LaTeX world.  But from what I've heard here, ConTeXt
> is happy being multi-lingual, and I wouldn't guess that LaTeX has an
> advantage.
> 
> But using ConTeXt is much more fun.  When I ask, "can I do this?" the
> answer is "Yes."  With LaTeX the answer was often, "No."

A dissenting voice: I don't think Context is easier than LaTeX. One
stumbling block is the documentation - there is a lot of it, but I find
it hard to find my way around in it - another is the sheer mass of
Context, which makes it hard to find things and to debug problems.
Debugging is hampered even more by the multilingual interface and by all
the internal space-eating dummy parameters.

In practice, I need to write just as much plain TeX with Context as with
LaTeX, and I need to ask a lot more questions in order to get the job
done. And in Context I encounter just as many mysterious goings-on as in
LaTeX.

I use Context when I have to, but in general I much prefer LaTeX.

Two things in favour of Context: other than LaTeX, it is capable of
producing a tight column layout. Also, Hans is very responsive and
helpful when you have a problem.

-- 
Siep Kroonenberg

Re: beginner's questions

[Ed L Cashin]

Hans Hagen <pragma@wxs.nl> writes:

> >- Most of the work I plan to make with context are small (<20pages)
> >  reports. Mostly text with some tables and pictures, and a few
> >  graphs. Is context the program to handle this, or should I choose
> >  latex? After a quick look at the docs, it seems context is easier to
> >  do most things. Is this correct?
> 
> that's for others to answer -) 

The possible conditions for choosing LaTeX over ConTeXt that come to
mind are these:

  * if your publisher requires it

  * if you must collaborate with latex users on a document

  * if you do no unusual documents, only math papers and physics
    papers (then you won't notice the incompatibilities and
    limitations as much)

... but then again, there are a lot of LaTeX features that I don't
use, since I only produce English-language documents, so I don't know
about much of the LaTeX world.  But from what I've heard here, ConTeXt
is happy being multi-lingual, and I wouldn't guess that LaTeX has an
advantage.

But using ConTeXt is much more fun.  When I ask, "can I do this?" the
answer is "Yes."  With LaTeX the answer was often, "No."

-- 
--Ed Cashin                     PGP public key:
  ecashin@coe.uga.edu           http://www.coe.uga.edu/~ecashin/pgp/

Re: beginner's questions

[Berend de Boer]

Wouter Verheijen wrote:

> - Although I am Dutch, I have no problem at all with using the English
>   words (e.g. \starttext instead of \starttekst).  I think this way, I
>   can avoid language conflicts.  Do the Dutch people agree or is it
>   normal to use the dutch words.  

I use the dutch interface for dutch documents, the english for english
documents.

> - The DVI files produced with context show up completely blank in
>   KDVI. They do work in Xdvi, and my Latex files always worked in Kdvi
>   as well. Who's to blame?

I always use DVI.

> - Most of the work I plan to make with context are small (<20pages)
>   reports. Mostly text with some tables and pictures, and a few
>   graphs. Is context the program to handle this, or should I choose
>   latex? After a quick look at the docs, it seems context is easier to
>   do most things. Is this correct?

ConTeXt has the advantage that you have everything in one package, for
LaTeX you usually need quite a few other packages 
which potentially can conflict.

Also look and feel is easier to change in ConTeXt. I seldom feel the
need to hack low level macro's :-)

Groetjes,

Berend. (-:

Re: beginner's questions

[Hans Hagen]

At 06:20 PM 11/9/00 +0100, Frans Goddijn wrote:

>I don't think it matters much. I started in Dutch and I'm
>confident that any new feature will be available in Dutch as well
>as in other languages. I do not exchange source texts with

that's true, since i use dutch -) as well as that the underlying code is
the same for all interfaces; interfaces are just translation lists 

Hans
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
                      Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
 tel: +31 (0)38 477 53 69 | fax: +31 (0)38 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: beginner's questions

[Hans Hagen]

At 05:51 PM 11/9/00 +0100, Wouter Verheijen wrote:
>Hi,

>- Although I am Dutch, I have no problem at all with using the English
>  words (e.g. \starttext instead of \starttekst).  I think this way, I
>  can avoid language conflicts.  Do the Dutch people agree or is it
>  normal to use the dutch words.  Most of my texts are in Dutch, so

I mostly use dutch for dutch projects and english for english documents.
Especially when you start defining your own structuring it makes more sense
to talk about vragen en antwoorden dan questions and answers etc. 

>  the spelling and hypenating language should remain Dutch.

\mainlanguage[nl]

>  I did texexec --make en, but my standard language interface is still
>  nl. It only works with texexec --int=en. How do I specify the
>  default?

you can add a first line to your file

% interface=en 

When you use english commands, texexec will recognize the doc as having an
enmglish interface, unless the doc is so small that there is nothing to
determine. You can also specify the default interface in texexec.ini

>- The DVI files produced with context show up completely blank in
>  KDVI. They do work in Xdvi, and my Latex files always worked in Kdvi
>  as well. Who's to blame?

You probably don't have any output or maybe you generated pdf output? 

>- Most of the work I plan to make with context are small (<20pages)
>  reports. Mostly text with some tables and pictures, and a few
>  graphs. Is context the program to handle this, or should I choose
>  latex? After a quick look at the docs, it seems context is easier to
>  do most things. Is this correct?

that's for others to answer -) 

Hans

PS. Next month the NTG will organize a context course. 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
                      Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
 tel: +31 (0)38 477 53 69 | fax: +31 (0)38 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: beginner's questions

[Frans Goddijn]

Hi Wouter,

welcome to the world of ConTeXt!

>   can avoid language conflicts.  Do the Dutch people agree or
is it
>   normal to use the dutch words.

I don't think it matters much. I started in Dutch and I'm
confident that any new feature will be available in Dutch as well
as in other languages. I do not exchange source texts with
english language people at present so I don't need the english
option. And if I get an english source file I can still run it.

> - Most of the work I plan to make with context are small
(<20pages)
>   reports. Mostly text with some tables and pictures, and a few
>   graphs. Is context the program to handle this, or should I
choose
>   latex? After a quick look at the docs, it seems context is
easier to
>   do most things. Is this correct?

Especially if you start out, ConTeXt is the way to go today, I
think.

Even if you produce relatively simple documents today, eventually
you will want to add some new subtleties or complications to make
your docs just that bit better looking, or more portable, or
interactive. With LaTeX that makes you dependent on a series of
style-file-authors who don't usually communicate to keep their
joint maze of new commands non-conflicting.

This didn't bother me in the past but if I could do it all over
gain, and ConteXt was where it is now in say 1993, I'd have been
a ConTeXt user all along. LaTeX and its myriad clever plug-in
styles was way ahead of the rest some years back, but I think
that has changed now.

If you use ConTeXt and keep yourself updated, you are almost
automatically right there at the cutting edge of TeX typesetting.

That's fun and thrilling, plus you create fine documents, which
is what we all started out to do.

Enjoy!

Frans

frans@goddijn.com   www.goddijn.com
tel NL 0621-815 881   fax: 026-3211759
Postbus 30196      6803 AD  Arnhem NL

beginner's questions

[Wouter Verheijen]

Hi,

I am trying context at the moment, after experimenting somewhat with
LaTeX.
- Although I am Dutch, I have no problem at all with using the English
  words (e.g. \starttext instead of \starttekst).  I think this way, I
  can avoid language conflicts.  Do the Dutch people agree or is it
  normal to use the dutch words.  Most of my texts are in Dutch, so
  the spelling and hypenating language should remain Dutch.
  I did texexec --make en, but my standard language interface is still
  nl. It only works with texexec --int=en. How do I specify the
  default?

- The DVI files produced with context show up completely blank in
  KDVI. They do work in Xdvi, and my Latex files always worked in Kdvi
  as well. Who's to blame?

- Most of the work I plan to make with context are small (<20pages)
  reports. Mostly text with some tables and pictures, and a few
  graphs. Is context the program to handle this, or should I choose
  latex? After a quick look at the docs, it seems context is easier to
  do most things. Is this correct?

Thanks for your opinions!

-- 
Wouter Verheijen
wouter.verheijen@worldmail.nl