Re: ConTeXt Book: Request for help!

["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
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
archive  : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________