From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.tex.context/20324 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: CB Newsgroups: gmane.comp.tex.context Subject: Re: Context, LaTeX, or an XML for academic writing? Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 09:52:59 +1000 Message-ID: <4281495B.5020200@gmail.com> References: <427C2ECB.4070808@gmail.com> <427F31EA.6000806@kpatents.com> Reply-To: mailing list for ConTeXt users NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1115768746 13996 80.91.229.2 (10 May 2005 23:45:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 23:45:46 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl Wed May 11 01:45:44 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from ronja.vet.uu.nl ([131.211.172.88] helo=ronja.ntg.nl) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DVePy-0005xO-TB for gctc-ntg-context-518@m.gmane.org; Wed, 11 May 2005 01:45:38 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38FA312809; Wed, 11 May 2005 01:53:10 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from ronja.ntg.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.ntg.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 28307-04; Wed, 11 May 2005 01:53:06 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from ronja.vet.uu.nl (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02EAC12800; Wed, 11 May 2005 01:53:06 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7119A12800 for ; Wed, 11 May 2005 01:53:05 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from ronja.ntg.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.ntg.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 28244-07 for ; Wed, 11 May 2005 01:53:04 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from mail15.syd.optusnet.com.au (mail15.syd.optusnet.com.au [211.29.132.196]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEE97127EB for ; Wed, 11 May 2005 01:53:03 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from [210.49.127.36] (c210-49-127-36.rochd1.qld.optusnet.com.au [210.49.127.36]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail15.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j4ANqwTB011367 for ; Wed, 11 May 2005 09:53:00 +1000 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en Original-To: mailing list for ConTeXt users In-Reply-To: <427F31EA.6000806@kpatents.com> X-Virus-Scanned: 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-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on smtp.ntg.nl X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ntg.nl Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.tex.context:20324 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.comp.tex.context:20324 Hi Ville, Thanks for your reply. I don't have much more to say on this yet, but have added a few comments below. > > I was in a similar situation a few years ago (writing my PhD thesis). > I think you are absolutely right when you avoid Word and everything > Wordish. Making a big document with Word requires a lot of knowledge > about what you should avoid. And in the end you'll still spend your > nights wondering why the **** the crossreferences or page numbers go > wrong. Absolutely. Word seems easy at first, but I've watched people go gray trying to get large texts to do what they want, close to deadline. > > However, your wishlist looks a bit difficult. Actually your comment here might suggest how far we have to go then, as I'd consider my wishlist a very roughly stated but really quite minimal set of requirements for academic writing. > > The situation becomes much more complicated if you need RTF. It is a > completely different story, a word processor editable format. I guess > you don't really want to distribute your work in editable format, and > PDF can be read with virtually any computer. > > I'd say it'll fill number 2, as well. But RTF, no. There may be > kludges to make it kind of, you know, a bit like, errr, RTFish, but > nothing really good. The reason is simple: the two things are far > apart from each other. Since posting I've thought a bit more about why I wanted RTF, and realised it wouldn't do what I wanted anyway. The 'inter-operation with Word users' I was referring to is primarily this: it's common amongst academics I know here in Australia to use some of the collaboration features of Word (marginal comments and revision control, particularly). RTF wouldn't actually help with those anyway. So there's really no way around this without using Word, which I will only do at gunpoint.