Re: choice for table material

["Eckhart Guthöhrlein" <eckhart_guthoehrlein@public.uni-hamburg.de>]

At 22:08 04.07.2001 +0200, you wrote:
>At 06:23 PM 7/4/01 +0200, Eckhart Guthöhrlein wrote:
> >I am a bit confused about the different possibilities to typeset tables, so
> >let me first outline how I have understood things. If a table may be split
> >across pages, tabulate is the one to choose.
>
>right
>
>If not, there are two
>
>wrong, you can also split \starttable .. [use \starttables instead
>
> >possibilities: table and TABLE. TABLE is the most recent development. Is it
> >principally more advanced and preferrable to table, which would man that
>
>wrong, it is advanced, but of a different kind, it acts a bit like
>automatic hml tables, but (currently) is slow
>
> >table is there for backward compatibility reasons only, or are there
> >effects which can be achieved with table, but not with TABLE?
>
>there are some, yet undocumented ones that have to do with advanced
>backgrounds, although one can do interesting things with TABLE too
>
>btw, i will rewrite table from scratch some day
>
>Hans

Just saw your mail after getting online and posting my own follow-up. In 
the meantime, I have gathered the various sources of documentation to a 
diffuse conglomerate in my head, so thanks a lot for your clarifications. I 
did my first ConTeXt table material today, so I think I have to gather some 
experience with the different possibilities before I will be able to 
discuss further about it (if this should still be necessary...). Thanks 
again in the meantime.

Eckhart