Maybe I'm missing the point, but what about Emacs?  There are versions for
most operating systems, and emacs+auctex is surely the editing system of
choice for any TeX-based system.

-Alasdair

2011/8/15 Idris Samawi Hamid ادريس سماوي حامد <ishamid@colostate.edu>

> Hi Kip,
>
>
> On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 15:16:58 -0600, Kip Warner <kip@thevertigo.com> wrote:
>
>  As some of you may know, I'm working on a professional introductory book
>>> for learning ConTeXt. Part of the philosophy of this book is to be as
>>> self-contained as possible, so we'll be using a preferred editor.
>>>
>>
>  Hey Idris. I think writing a book is a great idea and much needed. I
>> don't believe that tying it to a specific editor though is neither
>> necessary nor a good idea.
>>
>
> The Book will not be "tied" to an editor. However, one goal of the book is
> to be accessible to absolute newbies for whom the TeX-vs-editor distinction
> will be a turn-off. A complete newbie system should include an
> editor/environment. The book will be arranged in a way that the two are not
> coupled, and those with some TeX or other technical background can easily
> ignore Npp.
>
>
>  Not one editor/ide out there is ideal for ConTeXt (including bidi editing
>>> and other user-friendly configurability). The best balance I could find
>>> is
>>> Notepad++ (Npp), and that's what I'm going with.
>>>
>>
>  The problem with Npp is that the tens of millions of users out there
>>
>
> Wow, that would be great if we got tens of millions of users to buy the
> Book :D :D :D
>
>
>  running operating systems like Ubuntu will not be able to use Notepad++
>> since it is written only for Windows.
>>
>
> Well, most people using Linux have some technical facility, so they can
> configure their own editors.
>
>
>  It might be better to decouple the
>> editor from the information on ConTeXt itself and perhaps offer editor
>> specific integration information in an appendix.
>>
>
> That is actually one option I'm considering. In any case.
>
>
>  You'll find that Gedit,
>>
>
> I did look at gedit, but for the current vision I have for introducing
> ConTeXt to non-technical folks it does not work.
>
> Actually, I spent months checking for a better candidate than Npp,
> experimenting with just about everything I could get my hands on. On balance
> Npp got the best score on all the benchmarks I set. That's not to say I
> wouldn't prefer something better, but that decision is done, only to be
> revisited if something really AMAZING happens in the next few months.
>
> WinEdt would really have been be my ideal choice -- but the lack of
> unicode, bidi is just a non-starter. TeXWorks has a long way to go, and
> although I'm a fan of Qt its open-type implementation is buggy; so some
> Arabic-monospaced fonts don't show up correctly.
>
>
>
>  for instance, is very easy to write syntax highlighting for.
>>
>
> Syntax highlighting is only a small part of what we're doing with Npp.
> Otherwise, just the user-defined dialog of Npp would be sufficient.
> Click-and-tag, tooltips ... these make for real user-friendliness.
>
> Thanks for the criticism and
>
>
> Best wishes
> Idris
> --
> Professor Idris Samawi Hamid, Editor-in-Chief
> International Journal of Shīʿī Studies
> Department of Philosophy
> Colorado State University
> Fort Collins, CO 80523
> ______________________________**______________________________**
> _______________________
> If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to
> the Wiki!
>
> maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/**
> listinfo/ntg-context <http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context>
> webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
> archive  : http://foundry.supelec.fr/**projects/contextrev/<http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/>
> wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
> ______________________________**______________________________**
> _______________________
>



-- 
Blog: http://amca01.wordpress.com
Web:  http://bit.ly/Alasdair
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/alasdair.mcandrew