From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.tex.context/17502 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Adam Lindsay" Newsgroups: gmane.comp.tex.context Subject: mag-0008 (was: XML & s) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 18:02:32 +0000 Message-ID: <20041213180232.18842@news.comp.lancs.ac.uk> References: <41BA1753.9080206@wxs.nl> Reply-To: mailing list for ConTeXt users NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1102963484 8553 80.91.229.6 (13 Dec 2004 18:44:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 18:44:44 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl Mon Dec 13 19:44:31 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from ronja.vet.uu.nl ([131.211.172.88] helo=ronja.ntg.nl) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1Cduid-0005UY-00 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 2004 19:14:47 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C26612799; Mon, 13 Dec 2004 19:14:47 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from ronja.ntg.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ronja.vet.uu.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 07545-07; Mon, 13 Dec 2004 19:14:47 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from ronja.vet.uu.nl (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8549912798; Mon, 13 Dec 2004 19:11:58 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 343D912798 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 2004 19:11:57 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from ronja.ntg.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ronja.vet.uu.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 07557-05 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 2004 19:11:56 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from mail.comp.lancs.ac.uk (unknown [148.88.3.45]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 410B51278E for ; Mon, 13 Dec 2004 19:11:56 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from [192.168.50.53] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.comp.lancs.ac.uk (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id iBDIBfiB029483; Mon, 13 Dec 2004 18:11:50 GMT Original-To: "mailing list for ConTeXt users" , "Bruce D'Arcus" , "Hans Hagen" In-Reply-To: <41BA1753.9080206@wxs.nl> X-Mailer: CTM PowerMail version 5.1 build 4340 English X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at ntg.nl X-BeenThere: ntg-context@ntg.nl X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: mailing list for ConTeXt users List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl Errors-To: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at ntg.nl Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.comp.tex.context:17502 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.comp.tex.context:17502 h h extern said this at Fri, 10 Dec 2004 22:38:27 +0100: >> Also, what's the status of contml? I like the idea of it as a simple, >> structural, basic markup that ConTeXt handles with zero effort, but is >> anyone actually using it? > >we sometimes mix it into other xml docs; i have no problem with extending it; >actualy, (see mag-0008.pdf), i want to map most context directly onto xml so >that we have a rather complete xml input syntax Yes, indeed. I took a look at the magazine again last night, and it was put in an entirely new light. I'm very curious to work with x-fx now... I've been working on a general-ish conversion script from a new Mac application. I'd like to offer most of ContML as basic level constructs, but it should be possible for a user to add their own tags. If they can tap into fx:anything tags, it should make people (hi, Bruce!) fairly happy. My first reaction/critique of the approach was: why not fix at least one of the problems of TeX: that it's "a mixture between typesetting and programming features" as you say? What I propose is clearly a debatable XML-design issue, but it seemed strange that fx:definelayout and fx:p were put into the same namespace. Why do the formatting definitions share the same (theoretical) schema as markup? Your documents keep these categories separate, as one would expect. Why not encourage people to put them in separate files, as with "normal" ConTeXt workflows? The designer and author are more clearly divorced when you don't assume an XSLT-centric flow, right? (or, is this already planned with this tidbit from foxet: fs = setup) I'm curious about how the namespacing would work, though, because I want to use (and enable the use of) these nice fs:setuphead -like configurations with my hybrid ContML++ documents. Will: correctly (in my mind) affect a ContML element like this? something Curious, adam -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Adam T. Lindsay, Computing Dept. atl@comp.lancs.ac.uk Lancaster University, InfoLab21 +44(0)1524/510.514 Lancaster, LA1 4WA, UK Fax:+44(0)1524/510.492 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-