Re: A question for you

[nico <nicolas.marsgui@libertysurf.fr>]

On Fri, 26 May 2006 20:01:57 -0600, Idris Samawi Hamid  
<ishamid@colostate.edu> wrote:

> Which typesetting tasks do you NOT do in ConTeXt, and what do you prefer
> to use for those tasks?

I don't use context for any technical documentation that requires several  
output formats (HTML, PDF, troff for manpages), and i use DocBook instead,  
well suited for a wide range of transformation.

This said, I now uses context as backend typesetting engine to convert the  
DocBook documents into PDF. I can then control the (high quality) output  
rendering, what I cannot do with XSL FO based transformation, and I don't  
need java neither (required to process FO, unless you use foxet, maybe).

> What typesetting tasks do you find difficult-to-onerous in ConTeXt (even
> in nothing else is available)?

Common documents exchanged with colleagues (who have falled into the dark  
side of MS wor(l)d).

BTW, I think that the biggest limitation to have context more used is the  
installation difficulties: too many dependencies to update by hand (tetex,  
LM fonts, launching scripts, config files), no standard installation (what  
about having one day something like a "configure; make install"), no  
packaging à la RPM, apt-get, or portinstall. Of course, once done,  
upgrading the context release is not a big deal, but the first step is not  
obvious. It's the only explanation I've found why latex is so popular;  
knowing a bit more the context interface and features I now look latex as  
a stone age tex macro package.

Regards,
BG