From: luigi scarso <luigi.scarso@gmail.com>
To: mailing list for ConTeXt users <ntg-context@ntg.nl>
Subject: Re: Occasional words sticking out from flush-right
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 19:42:19 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <fe8d59da1003041042o60e7aa39tb5f0d448db7c53fe@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <771da05a1003040625h57b76829r11dea4cb4c800a16@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 3:25 PM, James Fisher <jameshfisher@gmail.com> wrote:
> lol; I thought this might come up. I have a couple of replies to that:
>
> (1) First and most important: I'm not suggesting that we use TeX to document
> things at all. I'm suggesting that ConTeXt documentation should be
> accessible to newcomers in the same format as 99% of all other projects:
> good old HTML.
Today HTML is still crude for a typographer but things can change with WOFF.
You still can't show the potential of ConTeXt with HTML, because main
output is pdf .
>On the web (which you are), HTML is king.
On a printing house( which I'm) , PDF is the king.
>TeX and PDFs are
> no replacement for the interconnected power of the web. When I want a quick
> piece of information in <10 seconds, I do not want to consult a
> hand-collected folder of PDFs, or google for it and wait the age for a PDF
> to load.
I grep the code.
It works even offline and in less than 1 second.
> That kind of feeling, I guess, is the reason that the
> contextgarden wiki exists. But nor is Mediawiki is really not the most
> appropriate way to document a project. Wikis are messy and unstructured.
> They don't lend themselves well to the hierarchical kind of structure
> appropriate for representing a codebase. So I'm suggesting that ConTeXt be
> documented using a typical established documentation system.
I disagree.
minimals should be self-cointained.
a documentation system not done in Context can introduce a useless dependency.
Anyway
even if there is already
http://foundry.supelec.fr/gf/project/modules/scmsvn/
(which is only usefula as testbed, not for documentation)
or if we will have something like cseq one day
(see
http://www.tug.org/utilities/plain/cseq.html, possible made in
automatic fashion from code base)
or a wiki book
(see
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/LaTeX
apropos of "Mediawiki is really not the most
appropriate way to document a project" )
it will be not enough --- a good starting point, of course.
In the end, one needs to understand the language, his semantic and
study the code.
With TeXBook, a couple of manuals from pragma (cont-en, metafun) and
the code you are ok
(well also ~1000 pages of pdf specs. are not bad and also some book
about fonts ...).
Others are articles, and they are ok too.
TeX is a macro language. There are almost ~1000 macros , and maybe
~500 macros in ConTeXt.
Even if we are able to "documents" them in some manner, understanding
them and their relations
is a matter of study the code.
>> About model of development: one developer is not so strange afterall .
>
> I'm not sure what your point is here. That user contribution leads to
> 'featuritis'? I totally understand that being 'frozen' is not a bad thing;
> it effectively means 'having reached a state of perfection for the defined
> task' -- I don't think this has a connection with having one developer.
> More developers == faster rate of approach to the limit of perfection.
No, not necessarily and not in this situation.
For TeX frozen means no new features, only bugfixes;
it means that the language is maintained and backward compatibility is
very important.
(about 80% of scientific articles are in TeX, so backward
compatibility is really important) .
It doesn't mean that the language is perfect.
To me frozen simply says that "it's time to explore the semantic of
the language rather than
add new features"
>
>>
>> This model doesn't imply that you cannot contribute to the code base
>> but only that all contributions need to be validate (and possible
>> rejected) and integrate by developer,.
>> You can also contribute with third part modules, but they are not in
>> base code and in case of conflicts code base wins.
>>
>
> Sure thing -- revision control doesn't hinder that at all. If Hans doesn't
> want to merge someone else's changes to his (authoritative) copy of the
> repo, then he doesn't have to. DVCS != chaos.
One developer assure that there is exactly one version e no forks
(friendly or not).
This is also ok because there is no need for forks (afterall none are
thinking to fork LaTeX2e):
> If Hans doesn't
> want to merge someone else's changes to his (authoritative) copy of the
> repo, then
the changes are rejected from the code base.
I'm not saying that a dcvs is useless for documentation or manuals.
But without contributors a dcvs can be practically useless,
and the only contributors for manuals actually are Taco for luatex and
Hans for Context mkiv.
--
luigi
___________________________________________________________________________________
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
webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
archive : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-03-04 18:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <mailman.607.1267648881.26807.ntg-context@ntg.nl>
2010-03-03 21:47 ` Vyatcheslav Yatskovsky
2010-03-03 21:53 ` Arthur Reutenauer
2010-03-03 23:19 ` James Fisher
2010-03-04 0:08 ` Aditya Mahajan
2010-03-04 2:35 ` James Fisher
2010-03-04 4:06 ` Aditya Mahajan
2010-03-04 14:39 ` James Fisher
2010-03-04 17:11 ` Aditya Mahajan
2010-03-04 17:15 ` luigi scarso
2010-03-04 17:30 ` Aditya Mahajan
2010-03-04 18:43 ` luigi scarso
2010-03-04 17:50 ` James Fisher
2010-03-04 7:10 ` luigi scarso
2010-03-04 14:25 ` James Fisher
2010-03-04 18:42 ` luigi scarso [this message]
2010-03-04 19:44 ` James Fisher
2010-03-04 20:04 ` Aditya Mahajan
2010-03-04 20:47 ` luigi scarso
2010-03-04 23:31 ` James Fisher
2010-03-04 23:36 ` Aditya Mahajan
2010-03-04 23:47 ` James Fisher
2010-03-05 9:30 ` luigi scarso
2010-03-03 23:09 ` setbreakpoints Vyatcheslav Yatskovsky
2010-03-04 14:40 ` setbreakpoints James Fisher
2010-03-03 19:19 Occasional words sticking out from flush-right James Fisher
2010-03-03 19:36 ` Wolfgang Schuster
2010-03-03 20:41 ` James Fisher
2010-03-03 20:44 ` luigi scarso
2010-03-03 21:19 ` James Fisher
2010-03-03 22:46 ` luigi scarso
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=fe8d59da1003041042o60e7aa39tb5f0d448db7c53fe@mail.gmail.com \
--to=luigi.scarso@gmail.com \
--cc=ntg-context@ntg.nl \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).