RE: Context, LaTeX, or an XML for academic writing?

[Ville Voipio <ville.voipio@kpatents.com>]

> I've also seen the MS thesis of Han The Thanh. It's good. But I would
> need something more suited for natural sciences that accomodates
> plenty of figures and references. Also I would like to "cloak" my
> thesis by avoiding Computer Modern.

LaTeX is developed for mathematical sciences by a mathematician.
It works beautifully with complex equations and embedding maths
into text. Everything in it -- including the CM fonts -- screams
"mathematics!".

ConTeXt is developed for typesetting manuals. Some requirements
are the same, for example the need for very solid and reliable
cross-references. Some requirements are different. Manuals and
other documentation require more control over the layout and
a very good support for illustrations.

Writing a thesis in science falls somewhere in between. If you
are writing something about quantum mechanics, I'd say you should
use LaTeX. If you are living on the fringe and doing something
more computer-oriented (or even chemical), the intentions of
ConTeXt developers and you converge better than with LaTeX.

I wrote my PhD thesis with LaTeX, because that was the only
viable alternative back then (four years ago). Now I think I'd
use ConTeXt due to its better layout handling.

[For the curious: the thesis is available at 
http://lib.tkk.fi/Diss/2001/isbn9512257270/ 

I can supply the LaTeX sources plus a document telling about
the tools and rationale behind, if someone needs it. But
be warned, it is not up-to-date information.]

---

Someone suggested using a ready-made template. Sure, if you can
get one somewhere with all the bells and whistles suitable for
your academic institution, take it. Be it ConTeXt or LaTeX,
you'll save a lot of trouble using a proven platform. Beautiful
documents with minimal effort. That's exactly what the
universities should supply.

Very unfortunately, there are seldom any good templates 
around. Very often there are no *TeX templates around,
regardless of quality. There may be some half-hearted Word
templates around, but at that point ducking or running --
whichever is more convenient -- is a good alternative.

And if there are no good templates around, then you'll need
to roll your own. One which fulfills all requirements set
by the administrators (all those lovely forms) and is
easy-to-read and looks nice.

One of the mixed blessings (=curses) brought about by computers 
is that now you need to be an academic writer, a typesetter, and
a graphic artist at the same time. At this point the number
of should-knows explodes.

On the typography side you have to know a million small things.
What kind of quotes to use, when to use en dash, when to use
em dash, how to hyphenate, how to type numbers and units. Then 
you need to decide on the typefaces to use, and the general 
layout of the page.

After all this is understood, then the technical problems have
to be overcome. You will need to find the fonts you want to use,
and you will need to be able to explain all this to the type-
setting system in use.

Also, you have to be able to draw the illustrations, with the
requirement that they are both aesthetically pleasing and
help to convey the message they carry. To do this, you need
the software to draw the illustrations and the file formats
to transfer the drawings to the typesetting system.

After all this is done, you can try to produce the printed book.
This may sound trivial, but is far away from that. There may
be problems with file formats (with an old version of pdfLaTeX
I managed to make a file which crashed a commercial RIP system,
this happened a few days before a big deadline), or at least
with color matching if nothing else.

---

Does the above sound easy? Not for me. Still, you are expected 
to make a professional-looking document in a situation where you
need to know half a dozen professions completely unrelated to your
own scientific field.

The result is that most people resort to using the Word and
a lot of other four-letter words. The documents range from
hideous to just slightly ugly, and are extremely fragile and
difficult to maintain.

---

What I am trying to say is that choosing the tool is only
one part of the project. Whichever tool you choose, you'll 
end up in trouble at some point. With some tools (WYSIWYG) 
you'll end up in worse trouble, but even with *TeX the road 
is bumpy at best, unless you really have a tested and proven 
templates which you can use.

The bumpiness has (IMO) slightly different nature in LaTeX
than in ConTeXt. In LaTeX there are a lot of great packages
and a lot of documentation. Books, web resources, mailing
lists, etc. The huge user base makes all this available.
However, finding the right packages and debugging some
odd interactions and conflicts between packages may be very
difficult.

ConTeXt gives a lot more control over layout in itself without
any packages or modules. And if you want something more exotic,
take metapost and do it. But the downside of this is that
as ConTeXt is a new system and has relatively fewer users,
the state of documentation is not very good. Even the official
documents are sometimes out-of-date. (This is really not to blame
Hans or anyone else. Hey, we get free high-quality software!
But this is something that has to be acknowledged and in the
long run acted upon. By us users.)

Whichever you choose, you'll have moments when you wish you'd
chosen differently.

---

Sorry, a long posting without really any good answer. The
only suggestion I give is that try to make the layout rather
early in the process. That way the writing is more fun, as
you can see the outcome already during the writing process.
And if you cannot stretch the tools to make the layout, you
can change the tools without too much trouble.

Good luck with your thesis!

- Ville