From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.tex.context/20342 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ville Voipio Newsgroups: gmane.comp.tex.context Subject: Re: Context, LaTeX, or an XML for academic writing? Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 16:46:58 +0300 Message-ID: <42835E52.20802@kpatents.com> References: <427C2ECB.4070808@gmail.com> <427F31EA.6000806@kpatents.com> <4281495B.5020200@gmail.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 1115905492 17082 80.91.229.2 (12 May 2005 13:44:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 13:44:52 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl Thu May 12 15:44:47 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 1DWDxp-0003Fs-Lf for gctc-ntg-context-518@m.gmane.org; Thu, 12 May 2005 15:42:57 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30DA31279E; Thu, 12 May 2005 15:50:44 +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 12401-01; Thu, 12 May 2005 15:50:43 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from ronja.vet.uu.nl (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BB821279B; Thu, 12 May 2005 15:47:01 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B8971279B for ; Thu, 12 May 2005 15:47:00 +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 11989-05 for ; Thu, 12 May 2005 15:46:59 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from mail.kpatents.com (mail.kpatents.com [195.170.128.67]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 0543F12793 for ; Thu, 12 May 2005 15:46:58 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: (qmail 32164 invoked from network); 12 May 2005 13:46:58 -0000 Original-Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.100.157?) (192.168.100.157) by mail.kpatents.com with SMTP; 12 May 2005 13:46:58 -0000 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: <4281495B.5020200@gmail.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:20342 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.comp.tex.context:20342 > 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. Well, if you drop the RTF part, then your wishlist is not that difficult. However, there are some requirements which look trivial at first but are rather difficult to make well. The most important of these is the difference between HTML and a printed book. As long as you use only running text (no illustrations, graphs, images, formulae, tables), there is no problem. By making suitable templates the text may be typeset well and it works as a web page (or a collection of web pages). In HTML you have less control over the layout, but as the user has the control, everything is well. Some problems arise when you add any special elements to the text. Formulae are a good example. Even though you might in principle use MathML or equivalent, the browser support is not built-in, so most users cannot read the formulae. You'll need to use images, but then the best resolution is hard to find. The same goes with images, SVG is not ready yet, so resolution problems are really difficult. Illustrations which print well at high resolution do not necessarily look good at screen resolution. But the real problems start with floats. Where do you put a picture with its captions on a web page? Or a footnote? One common solution is to put them behind a link. However, some people (yours truly included) find that following the links back and forth is clumsy. Another solution would be to place the figures within the text, but then we have all sorts of typesetting problems without having a typesetting engine. Of course, you can make miracles with XHTML/CSS. You can make something that looks laike pages from a book, for example. But then, why not really use PDF instead? Because then you can be sure of the layout. The hyperlink navigation paradigm of HTML is a good one for many purposes. It is not a good one for a book. If I have a book (or a PDF), I can easily verify I've read it to the last comma. With a more complicated (even a simple tree without loops) HTML document trying the same reminds me of the "Maze all different" in the old "Adventure" game (Colossal Cave Adventure by Will Growther). I am not saying HTML is bad and PDF good. HTML is extremely good for many purposes. Wiki is a good example of this, and so are many web pages. But as HTML is not necessarily a good form for a book, concentrating on PDF is probably a better idea. --- > 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. Well, if everyone around you is using Word and requires you to collaborate by using Word, you are up to your lower back in alligators. On the other hand, there are ways around this. What I use when commenting on other people's texts, I want to have the texts as PDF. Then I just simply write a mail with my comments: "p. 123, paragraph 2: Not so. Dr. Frankenstein proved this to be wrong in 1974, see Journal of Unlikely Science, 1865, pp. 1456-1505" p.127, figure 2.13: I don't get it." Exactly same thing as scribbling things into the margin. This method is independent of the programs used and does not really take any more time. I have found only two shortcomings with this method: 1. it is difficult to combine comments from several reviewers, 2. you cannot edit the text yourself even if you wanted to. The first one is a problem with Word documents, as well, and the second one is not always so desirable, anyway. Really, I hate it when people send me their Word files. I am quite convinced I am not the only one. The annotation mechanism in Word is similar to almost everything else in the program: looks easy, feels easy at first, makes you run circles on the walls in the end. - Ville