From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.tex.context/3968 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Hraban Newsgroups: gmane.comp.tex.context Subject: Re: koma compatibility? Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 21:59:52 +0100 Sender: owner-ntg-context@let.uu.nl Message-ID: <3A7DC2C4.A9184567@gmx.net> References: <3.0.6.32.20010131144152.01c0c390@server-1> <01020100214102.30780@bilbo> Reply-To: angerweit@gmx.net NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035394669 21732 80.91.224.250 (23 Oct 2002 17:37:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 17:37:49 +0000 (UTC) Original-To: ConTeXt Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.comp.tex.context:3968 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.comp.tex.context:3968 Uwe Koloska wrote: > So I thought about converting some of the LaTeX classes to context with > respect to the layout. Because every now and then I suggested ConTeXt to > people searching for a better alternative to word (not that difficult ;-)) As Hans said, layout changes/definition is that easy with ConTeXt, that we don't really need such unflexible stuff like LaTeX classes. You get the whole capabilities of the typearea package that is KoMa based on with ConTeXt, and the settings are easier. I agree, that some sample layouts would be nice, especially for beginners. I'd provide my book layout, but I think, it's that specialized (and not really perfect), that nobody has a use of it. Better are layout suggestions as you can read in every book on that subject and even my "Formelsammlung für Drucktechniker": http://www.planet-interkom.de/fiee.visuelle/formelsammlung/formelsammlung.html (source not yet transferred from LaTeX to ConTeXt) -- Grüßlis vom Hraban!