From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.tex.context/7294 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Giuseppe Bilotta Newsgroups: gmane.comp.tex.context Subject: Re: ConTeXt and critical editions Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 22:35:05 +0100 Sender: owner-ntg-context@let.uu.nl Message-ID: <4314932239.20020315223505@bigfoot.com> References: Reply-To: Giuseppe Bilotta NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035397768 18090 80.91.224.250 (23 Oct 2002 18:29:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 18:29:28 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ntg-context@ntg.nl Original-To: Idris Samawi Hamid In-Reply-To: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.comp.tex.context:7294 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.comp.tex.context:7294 Friday, March 15, 2002 Idris Samawi Hamid wrote: ISH> The 4TeX manual (please freely release part IV!) says ISH> "CONTEXT is fully compatible with PlainTEX". Is this meant ISH> that ConTeXt is compatible with Plain TeX ways that LaTeX ISH> (which redefines or obliterates some PlainTeX) commands is ISH> not? Is the ConTeXt output routine more easily ISH> accessed/modified? Will it be easier to port EDMAC to ConTeXt ISH> than to LaTeX (which I have wanted to do 4 some time) or vice ISH> versa? That comment is rather outdated, IMO. ConTeXt is today much less plain TeX compatible than in its early days, except maybe for math stuff (and even there it's undergoing thorough changes). This is especially true for font management (typescripts are the ConTeXt counterpart of the NFSS) and, I suspect, for the OTR. -- Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta