Context, LaTeX, or an XML for academic writing?

Context, LaTeX, or an XML for academic writing?

[Tobias Wolf]

Dear NTG-context denizens,

today I went to work to make up my mind about whether it would be a
good idea to go ahead and produce my BSc. Thesis with ConTeXt.
It's clear, I'm very much attracted to it's approach, I do like the
syntax and the focus on PDF output (I never used DVI before) et cetera
pp.
This is my first post to the list and I'm happy that CB just
formulated my main requirements. The hard contraints are certainly 2,
3 and 5.
I've seen Hrabans' ciee juxtaposition of ConTeXt and LaTeX, and after
searching the list I am not sure whether going for a KOMA class
wouldn't be better considering that I definitely don't have time
develop my own ConTeXt environment this time.

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.

Do ready-made "academic templates" by one of you experts exist - or
do you dissuade me from "just using" ConTeXt for for writing academic
literature?

- Tobias

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

[John R. Culleton]

On Saturday 14 May 2005 12:45 pm, Tobias Wolf wrote:
> Dear NTG-context denizens,
>
> today I went to work to make up my mind about whether it would be a
> good idea to go ahead and produce my BSc. Thesis with ConTeXt.
> It's clear, I'm very much attracted to it's approach, I do like the
> syntax and the focus on PDF output (I never used DVI before) et cetera
> pp.

AFAIK pdflatex will also bypass the dvi to ps to pdf maypole
dance. 


-- 

John Culleton

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

[Tobias Burnus]

Hello,

Tobias Wolf wrote:

>today I went to work to make up my mind about whether it would be a
>good idea to go ahead and produce my BSc. Thesis with ConTeXt.
>It's clear, I'm very much attracted to it's approach, I do like the
>syntax and the focus on PDF output (I never used DVI before) et cetera
>pp.
>  
>
As John already pointed out: Using "pdflatex" this is also possible with 
LaTeX (well, both use PDFTeX behind the scenes).

>I've seen Hrabans' ciee juxtaposition of ConTeXt and LaTeX, and after
>searching the list I am not sure whether going for a KOMA class
>wouldn't be better considering that I definitely don't have time
>develop my own ConTeXt environment this time.
>  
>
Well, the question is how much you want to change; I think one can (in 
both cases) live with the defaults provided (plus some minor changes). 
The defaults in LaTeX are arguably better, ConTeXt on the other hand 
allows changes much easier. I have also the feeling that ConTeXt's 
figure placement is better - at least I had so far not as much problems 
as with LaTeX. (In LaTeX frequently all figures are collected at the 
very end of the document -- or in between when one does a \clearpage.)

>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.
>Do ready-made "academic templates" by one of you experts exist - or
>do you dissuade me from "just using" ConTeXt for for writing academic
>literature?
>  
>
One reason to favour LaTeX is that many publishing houses are accepting 
LaTeX submission, while for ConTeXt less so. This is maybe less a 
problem for BSc/MSc theses, but for PhD theses, where one frequently 
includes some (own, published) papers, this means extra work. Having 
said that, I have written my diploma (~ MSc) thesis in physics using 
ConTeXt and I do plan to do so for my PhD as well.
I can send you the environment I used;¹ the layout could probably done 
better, but I think (hope) that it looks quite ok; I used Latin 
Modern/Computer Modern at 12pt on A4. (For my PhD theses I'll use 
probably use octavo/A5.) Changing the used font is easy, but one has to 
find one which contains all characters needed (incl. maths symbols, 
small caps [if needed], AMS Math symbols [or the font should fit to 
those AMS fonts], etc.)

Tobias

¹ http://www.physik.fu-berlin.de/~tburnus/thesis/thesis.pdf, 5.6 MiB

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

[Tobias Wolf]

> As John already pointed out: Using "pdflatex" this is also possible with
> LaTeX (well, both use PDFTeX behind the scenes).

That was what I meant of course. I always avoided DVI by using PdfTeX.

> Well, the question is how much you want to change; I think one can (in
> both cases) live with the defaults provided (plus some minor changes).
> The defaults in LaTeX are arguably better, ConTeXt on the other hand
> allows changes much easier. I have also the feeling that ConTeXt's
> figure placement is better - at least I had so far not as much problems
> as with LaTeX. (In LaTeX frequently all figures are collected at the
> very end of the document -- or in between when one does a \clearpage.)

Exactly these were my considerations. The topic this time forces me to
include many graphics and placement with LaTeX often depends on either
luck or browsing through many obscure packages that try to alleviate
the situation. On the other hand does the ConTeXt default look rather
"bare-bones" and I'm afraid that I'll lose myself  in micro- and
macro-tweaking.

> One reason to favour LaTeX is that many publishing houses are accepting
> LaTeX submission, while for ConTeXt less so. This is maybe less a
> problem for BSc/MSc theses, but for PhD theses, where one frequently
> includes some (own, published) papers, this means extra work. Having
> said that, I have written my diploma (~ MSc) thesis in physics using
> ConTeXt and I do plan to do so for my PhD as well.

That will be less of an issue for me (The paper that will be published
based also on my findings is formatted in Word(TM)).

> I can send you the environment I used;¹ the layout could probably done
> better, but I think (hope) that it looks quite ok; I used Latin
> Modern/Computer Modern at 12pt on A4. (For my PhD theses I'll use
> probably use octavo/A5.)

It looks quite nice. At first the baselines seemed a bit fuzzy in
acroread but that was an illusion I guess. I you sent me your thing to
have a peek at that would surely be very instructive. Go ahead,
please!

- Tobias

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

[Matthias Weber]

Hi Tobias,

here is my recommendation:

Ask somebody in your field who is really good at TeX for the LaTeX 
sources of his/her thesis,
and use them as templates. Spend as little time as possible thinking 
about
layout and as much as you can about content.

You only will have the energy  to strive for excellence in layout after 
you have
had the satisfaction of creating content worthy of it.

There are also more worldly considerations: To preserve content, it 
helps if the
content is written in a well-supported, rarely changing format.
For instance, the arxiv preprint server currently accepts among TeX 
dialects only
TeX/LaTeX/AMSTeX/AMSLaTeX but not ConTeXt (you could submit PDF, 
though).
Also, if you ever write a joint paper, chances are high that you'll use 
LaTeX.

Even though I have been using ConTeXt now for over a year for my 
personal
projects, I am almost forced to use LaTeX for collaboration and journal
publication.

Hope that helps,

Matthias


On May 14, 2005, at 7:45 AM, Tobias Wolf wrote:

> Dear NTG-context denizens,
>
> today I went to work to make up my mind about whether it would be a
> good idea to go ahead and produce my BSc. Thesis with ConTeXt.
> It's clear, I'm very much attracted to it's approach, I do like the
> syntax and the focus on PDF output (I never used DVI before) et cetera
> pp.
> This is my first post to the list and I'm happy that CB just
> formulated my main requirements. The hard contraints are certainly 2,
> 3 and 5.
> I've seen Hrabans' ciee juxtaposition of ConTeXt and LaTeX, and after
> searching the list I am not sure whether going for a KOMA class
> wouldn't be better considering that I definitely don't have time
> develop my own ConTeXt environment this time.
>
> 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.
>
> Do ready-made "academic templates" by one of you experts exist - or
> do you dissuade me from "just using" ConTeXt for for writing academic
> literature?
>
> - Tobias
> _______________________________________________
> ntg-context mailing list
> ntg-context@ntg.nl
> http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context

Context, LaTeX, or an XML for academic writing?

[Tobias Wolf]

> Ask somebody in your field who is really good at TeX for the LaTeX
> sources of his/her thesis,
> and use them as templates. Spend as little time as possible thinking
> about
> layout and as much as you can about content.

You speak the truth. I really want to avoid that. I do have solid
experience with LaTeX and could start right away with it. Considering
ConTeXt comes from its clear conceptual advantages. I'm basing the
decision on whether someone can point me into a direction and say:
"use this, it looks great and you'll be content with it".


> You only will have the energy  to strive for excellence in layout after
> you have
> had the satisfaction of creating content worthy of it.

I did a presentation before with ConTeXt and exactly that was the
painful lesson I learned.

Thanks for the advice

- Tobias

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

[Ville Voipio]

> 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

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

[Paul Tremblay]

On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 01:41:00AM +0300, Ville Voipio wrote:
> 
> 
> 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.
> 

[snip]
> ---
> 
> 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.
> 

Yes, this is exactly the problem. I am laying out my girlfriend's
thesis in historic preservation, and it is taking me forever. What a
waste of time! 

The thesis is actually written in  XML. Or rather, she has written it
in MS Word, which I have converted to XML using a very sophisticated
script (http://rtf2xml.sourceforge.net/). I then convert the file to
ConTexT, and then to PDF. There are a million stupid details, like
making sure the title on the cover page is exactly 3 inches from the
top and so fourth. 

This is a waste of time. Why should we be forced to layout pages when
we don't want to? 

Therefore I think a good argument can be made for universities
eventually accepting a thesis in XML format. If they want to be so
picky about layout, they should do it; the student should only be
required to submit the basic information in a structured form.

The assumption of the University is that everyone uses Word. This is a
bad assumption.

Paul

-- 

************************
*Paul Tremblay         *
*phthenry@iglou.com    *
************************

Context, LaTeX, or an XML for academic writing?

[CB]

Hi,

I'm returning to graduate study after a few years out in the workplace. 
I'm a bit rusty on what good stuff there is out there for academic 
writing, and after a bit of research I've come up with: ConTeXt, LaTeX 
or an XML dtd (tbook or DocBook?) plus appropriate tools. I'm ruling out 
Word (having wrestled with it at work), and am reluctant to use anything 
similar like OpenOffice. I have used LaTeX for some things in the past. 
There will a little maths in my writing, but it's not central.

Here are my main criteria for choice, in order of priority:

1) future-proofing. ie. I want my text to be always available to me 
forever, or until I die, whichever comes first. I take this to mean that 
I want the canonical form of my documents to be plain text of some sort. 
It also means that the system needs to be widely-used enough that it 
will be translateable into essential future formats as they arise.

2) semantic rather than layout-oriented markup as much as possible. I'm 
impatient with, and marginally interested in, layout. I'm very 
interested in what my text means. As much as possible, I want to set up 
my layouts early in the piece, and never think about them again.

3) relatively easy integration with some form of bibliographic 
database(ish) system (bibtex would do).

4) ability to produce pdf's, html, and rtf versions (for interoperation 
with Word-users) at least.

5) no need for me to write any code. I used to be a programmer, and when 
I left, promised myself, my wife, and my cat that I would never write a 
line of code again. I don't mind a bit of TeXish fiddling if 
*absolutely* necessary.


ConTeXt seems to fit the bill for 1,3 and 5. I'm not sure about 4 (html? 
rtf?) or 2 (I haven't had a proper look at the nature of the available 
macros yet) .

Would anyone with 1st hand knowledge of writing in academia care to 
comment either on the above or your own reasons for your choice of 
tools? I am doing my own research on all this stuff, but I know that 
until I get into the fray, there will be things I haven't thought of.

Cheers,

CB.

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

[Ville Voipio]

> or an XML dtd (tbook or DocBook?) plus appropriate tools. I'm ruling out 
> Word (having wrestled with it at work), and am reluctant to use anything 
> similar like OpenOffice. I have used LaTeX for some things in the past. 

I was in a similar situation a few years ago (writing my PhD thesis). I 
think you are absolutely right when you avoid Word and everything 
Wordish. Making a big document with Word requires a lot of knowledge 
about what you should avoid. And in the end you'll still spend your 
nights wondering why the **** the crossreferences or page numbers go wrong.

I ended up using LaTeX. I didn't know much about ConTeXt by that time,
and also had a lot of maths in the book. I am not sure which one I'd 
take, if I could choose right now. I think your choice is one of the 
following: LaTeX, DocBook, ConTeXt, ConTeXt+XML.

However, your wishlist looks a bit difficult. A few comments:

> 1) future-proofing.

LaTeX is more common. On the other hand, you can (and should) take a 
snapshot of your working environment when you've finished what you're doing.

All TeX variants (and XML stuff) are future-proof in the sense that all 
text and images are easy to recover if needed. Use only PDF, JPG, and 
PNG for images to be on the safe side. Reproducing the same layout 
depends on many other issues, even small changes in font metrics may 
change things. It is also well possible that 30 years from now nobody 
remembers ConTeXt (or DocBook or LaTeX or TeX).

XML is in a way a safe bet, but even there you're up to some programming 
if the tools disappear.

> 2) semantic rather than layout-oriented markup as much as possible.

I think this is something you can do with all alternatives. In a typical 
ConTeXt (and LaTeX) file there is a lot of layout stuff in the 
beginning, but in the document itself the tagging is really independent 
from layout, if you've done the preliminary work right. At least I 
consider it bad style, if you use explicit font switches or equivalent 
in a document.

However, even if you think the layout is not that important, you'll need 
to do a lot of things with it before having a printable book. In this 
sense ConTeXt seems to give a lot of possibilities, but the 
documentation is not very complete. LaTeX is a bit more difficult, and 
you need to do more TeXing, but in practice you don't as someone else 
has done it before (packages). Fonts are difficult in any case :)

I am not a DocBook specialist, but my impression is that it is really 
not so much geared towards printable layout. This, of course, makes the 
markup separate from the layout.

This is the key in making successful documents with any system: The 
content and the layout are two different layers. Word processing 
programs mix them into a sorry mess, but for the smoothest workflow they 
should be separated. It should even be possible for different people do 
do carry out the two different tasks.

> 3) relatively easy integration with some form of bibliographic 
> database(ish) system (bibtex would do).

(.*)TeX will do.

> 4) ability to produce pdf's, html, and rtf versions (for interoperation 
> with Word-users) at least.

PDF is a must. HTML can be reproduced from (.*)TeX, but DocBook is the 
only one designed with HTML in mind. On the other hand this may reflect 
to the print quality; TeX is a real typesetting system. There are ways 
to make TeX out of DocBook (e.g. passiveTeX), but the quality is not 
always as good as with other alternatives.

HTML is more a matter of taste. A nicely working PDF is -- IMHO -- much 
easier to use. It is easy to search from the complete document, and 
links from the index and ToC make the use straightforward. Modern 
displays are sufficiently high-res for PDF to be read on-screen. Also, 
printing a complete PDF document is easy.

The situation becomes much more complicated if you need RTF. It is a 
completely different story, a word processor editable format. I guess 
you don't really want to distribute your work in editable format, and 
PDF can be read with virtually any computer.

So, I'd concentrate on making a visually pleasing high-quality PDF with 
working links in it. That will make most readers happy.

> 5) no need for me to write any code. I used to be a programmer, and when 
> I left, promised myself, my wife, and my cat that I would never write a 
> line of code again. I don't mind a bit of TeXish fiddling if 
> *absolutely* necessary.

All alternatives are equivalent in this sense. Of course, if you plan on 
doing something with ConTeXt/XML, that requires some work, but not 
really programming. And all layout stuff with (.*)TeX requires some 
serious head scratching in the beginning, anyway.

> ConTeXt seems to fit the bill for 1,3 and 5. I'm not sure about 4 (html? 
> rtf?) or 2 (I haven't had a proper look at the nature of the available 
> macros yet) .

I'd say it'll fill number 2, as well. But RTF, no. There may be kludges 
to make it kind of, you know, a bit like, errr, RTFish, but nothing 
really good. The reason is simple: the two things are far apart from 
each other.

- Ville

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

[CB]

Hi Ville,

Thanks for your reply. I don't have much more to say on this yet, but 
have added a few comments below.


>
> I was in a similar situation a few years ago (writing my PhD thesis). 
> I think you are absolutely right when you avoid Word and everything 
> Wordish. Making a big document with Word requires a lot of knowledge 
> about what you should avoid. And in the end you'll still spend your 
> nights wondering why the **** the crossreferences or page numbers go 
> wrong.


Absolutely. Word seems easy at first, but I've watched people go gray 
trying to get large texts to do what they want, close to deadline.

>
> However, your wishlist looks a bit difficult.

Actually your comment here might suggest how far we have to go then, as 
I'd consider my wishlist a very roughly stated but really quite minimal 
set of requirements for academic writing.

>
> The situation becomes much more complicated if you need RTF. It is a 
> completely different story, a word processor editable format. I guess 
> you don't really want to distribute your work in editable format, and 
> PDF can be read with virtually any computer.
>
> I'd say it'll fill number 2, as well. But RTF, no. There may be 
> kludges to make it kind of, you know, a bit like, errr, RTFish, but 
> nothing really good. The reason is simple: the two things are far 
> apart from each other. 


Since posting I've thought a bit more about why I wanted RTF, and 
realised it wouldn't do what I wanted anyway. The 'inter-operation with 
Word users' I was referring to is primarily this: it's common amongst 
academics I know here in Australia to use some of the collaboration 
features of Word (marginal comments and revision control, particularly). 
RTF wouldn't actually help with those anyway. So there's really no way 
around this without using Word, which I will only do at gunpoint.

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

[Henning Hraban Ramm]

Am 11.05.2005 um 01:52 schrieb CB:
> Since posting I've thought a bit more about why I wanted RTF, and 
> realised it wouldn't do what I wanted anyway. The 'inter-operation 
> with Word users' I was referring to is primarily this: it's common 
> amongst academics I know here in Australia to use some of the 
> collaboration features of Word (marginal comments and revision 
> control, particularly). RTF wouldn't actually help with those anyway. 
> So there's really no way around this without using Word, which I will 
> only do at gunpoint.

If you and your collaborators have Acrobat (full) or Jaws PDF Editor 
you could at least use the comment features of PDF and perhaps the 
workflow possibilities of Acrobat 6+.


Grüßlis vom Hraban!
---
http://www.fiee.net/texnique/
http://contextgarden.net

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

[Ville Voipio]

> Actually your comment here might suggest how far we have to go then, as 
> I'd consider my wishlist a very roughly stated but really quite minimal 
> set of requirements for academic writing.

Well, if you drop the RTF part, then your wishlist is not that 
difficult. However, there are some requirements which look trivial at 
first but are rather difficult to make well. The most important of these 
is the difference between HTML and a printed book.

As long as you use only running text (no illustrations, graphs, images, 
formulae, tables), there is no problem. By making suitable templates the 
text may be typeset well and it works as a web page (or a collection of 
web pages). In HTML you have less control over the layout, but as the 
user has the control, everything is well.

Some problems arise when you add any special elements to the text. 
Formulae are a good example. Even though you might in principle use 
MathML or equivalent, the browser support is not built-in, so most users 
cannot read the formulae. You'll need to use images, but then the best 
resolution is hard to find. The same goes with images, SVG is not ready 
yet, so resolution problems are really difficult. Illustrations which 
print well at high resolution do not necessarily look good at screen 
resolution.

But the real problems start with floats. Where do you put a picture with 
its captions on a web page? Or a footnote? One common solution is to put 
them behind a link. However, some people (yours truly included) find 
that following the links back and forth is clumsy. Another solution 
would be to place the figures within the text, but then we have all 
sorts of typesetting problems without having a typesetting engine.

Of course, you can make miracles with XHTML/CSS. You can make something 
that looks laike pages from a book, for example. But then, why not 
really use PDF instead? Because then you can be sure of the layout.

The hyperlink navigation paradigm of HTML is a good one for many 
purposes. It is not a good one for a book. If I have a book (or a PDF), 
I can easily verify I've read it to the last comma. With a more 
complicated (even a simple tree without loops) HTML document trying the 
same reminds me of the "Maze all different" in the old "Adventure" game 
(Colossal Cave Adventure by Will Growther).

I am not saying HTML is bad and PDF good. HTML is extremely good for 
many purposes. Wiki is a good example of this, and so are many web 
pages. But as HTML is not necessarily a good form for a book, 
concentrating on PDF is probably a better idea.

---

> Since posting I've thought a bit more about why I wanted RTF, and 
> realised it wouldn't do what I wanted anyway. The 'inter-operation with 
> Word users' I was referring to is primarily this: it's common amongst 
> academics I know here in Australia to use some of the collaboration 
> features of Word (marginal comments and revision control, particularly). 
> RTF wouldn't actually help with those anyway. So there's really no way 
> around this without using Word, which I will only do at gunpoint.

Well, if everyone around you is using Word and requires you to 
collaborate by using Word, you are up to your lower back in alligators. 
On the other hand, there are ways around this. What I use when 
commenting on other people's texts, I want to have the texts as PDF. 
Then I just simply write a mail with my comments:

"p. 123, paragraph 2: Not so. Dr. Frankenstein proved this to be wrong 
in 1974, see Journal of Unlikely Science, 1865, pp. 1456-1505"

p.127, figure 2.13: I don't get it."

Exactly same thing as scribbling things into the margin. This method is 
independent of the programs used and does not really take any more time. 
I have found only two shortcomings with this method: 1. it is difficult 
to combine comments from several reviewers, 2. you cannot edit the text 
yourself even if you wanted to. The first one is a problem with Word 
documents, as well, and the second one is not always so desirable, anyway.

Really, I hate it when people send me their Word files. I am quite 
convinced I am not the only one. The annotation mechanism in Word is 
similar to almost everything else in the program: looks easy, feels easy 
at first, makes you run circles on the walls in the end.

- Ville

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

[CB]

Ville Voipio wrote:

>
>
> I am not saying HTML is bad and PDF good. HTML is extremely good for 
> many purposes. Wiki is a good example of this, and so are many web 
> pages. But as HTML is not necessarily a good form for a book, 
> concentrating on PDF is probably a better idea.
>

I hadn't thought of half the stuff you mention, which comes of the fact 
that my requirements come anticipation rather than recent use (I'm 
returning to academia after 10 years being in jobs where the only 
writing I've had to do is reports in Word for semi-literate business 
people). I thought it might be good to pick and learn a system now 
rather than start with one format only to find deficiencies and have to 
switch later.

I can see a place for books and articles in HTML, but as a supplement to 
PDF for fast online browsing (and in that context I don't see a problem 
with just reducing layout standards). But I agree PDF is the thing to 
concentrate on for fully-formatted output.

>
> Well, if everyone around you is using Word and requires you to 
> collaborate by using Word, you are up to your lower back in 
> alligators. On the other hand, there are ways around this. What I use 
> when commenting on other people's texts, I want to have the texts as 
> PDF. Then I just simply write a mail with my comments:
>
> "p. 123, paragraph 2: Not so. Dr. Frankenstein proved this to be wrong 
> in 1974, see Journal of Unlikely Science, 1865, pp. 1456-1505"
>
> p.127, figure 2.13: I don't get it."

That seems fine to me, but many people are often so wowed by GUI stuff 
that they wouldn't consider using this rather than the pretty marginal 
notes that Word produces. I have a friend in academia here who does 
successfully resist the (sometimes quite heavy) insistence on Word. She 
just says that she's not willing to be forced to use the products of a 
foreign monopolist which has been found guilty of large-scale corporate 
malfeasance in multiple jurisdictions worldwide. Being a 
humanities-based academic, she can get away with this ;) Her colleagues 
yawn and tell her to use what she wants.

>
>
> Really, I hate it when people send me their Word files. I am quite 
> convinced I am not the only one. The annotation mechanism in Word is 
> similar to almost everything else in the program: looks easy, feels 
> easy at first, makes you run circles on the walls in the end.
>
> - Ville

That's also my experience. I've worked in a company which has hired very 
expensive Microsoft consultants to come in and set up some  
Sharepoint+Word-based workflow for documentation. The system was so 
complex and fragile, it got dumped within weeks and everyone went back 
to hacking up adhoc Word docs again, copying and pasting like fury.