On Wed, 30 Jan 2013, Idris Samawi Hamid ادريس   سماوي حامد wrote:

>
> If I can go out on a limb: What Bill seems to want is a general 
> WYSIWYG->ConTeXt solution. Generalizing Thomas's remark, I'm not sure that 
> the word-processor paradigm is appropriate for such a thing (unless one is 
> very disciplined in using the word processor). But a WYSIWYG structured 
> layout processor like Framemaker (is there some free imitation out there?) 
> may output xml that is more regular, predictable, and easier to map to 
> ConTeXt than any M$-Word imitation.

For a *simple* WYSIWYG solution, have a look at zim 
(http://zim-wiki.org/). It is a desktop wiki, but it has support for basic 
structure elements (headings, bold, italic, etc., lists, images, 
hyperlinks). It has a native text-based format, and exports to 
HTML/Markdown/ReST.

So, if you do not need any fancy features (tables, footnotes, etc.), it 
may be a suitable WYSIWYG editor. I assume that the generated HTML is 
clean, and it should be easier to handle than ODT.

Aditya