From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.tex.context/57659 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: John Haltiwanger Newsgroups: gmane.comp.tex.context Subject: Re: The ConTeXt book Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2010 14:20:56 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20100401170822.GF29608@phare.normalesup.org> <20100402094904.GD24723@phare.normalesup.org> <4BB5C219.1010408@wxs.nl> <4BB5D7B5.4040101@wxs.nl> Reply-To: mailing list for ConTeXt users NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1270210878 22231 80.91.229.12 (2 Apr 2010 12:21:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2010 12:21:18 +0000 (UTC) Cc: mailing list for ConTeXt users To: Hans Hagen Original-X-From: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl Fri Apr 02 14:21:06 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gctc-ntg-context-518@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from balder.ntg.nl ([195.12.62.10]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Nxfs2-0001NZ-Qn for gctc-ntg-context-518@m.gmane.org; Fri, 02 Apr 2010 14:21:06 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4961FC9C7F; Fri, 2 Apr 2010 14:21:05 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at balder.ntg.nl Original-Received: from balder.ntg.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (balder.ntg.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 1mdPEgV3wASk; Fri, 2 Apr 2010 14:21:01 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from balder.ntg.nl (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09FB4C9CFF; Fri, 2 Apr 2010 14:21:01 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1937AC9CFF for ; Fri, 2 Apr 2010 14:20:59 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at balder.ntg.nl Original-Received: from balder.ntg.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (balder.ntg.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id tAA-j94OZlTp for ; Fri, 2 Apr 2010 14:20:56 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from mail-bw0-f221.google.com (mail-bw0-f221.google.com [209.85.218.221]) by balder.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id B239FC9C7F for ; Fri, 2 Apr 2010 14:20:56 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: by bwz21 with SMTP id 21so1648668bwz.15 for ; Fri, 02 Apr 2010 05:20:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:received:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=SCrH8qqqy1IIWUyVt2QUa/jIlUkQufERe2tO+vvrt6c=; b=jUdGgRGycv+7j7sa3rLu5gx4BCsSuyZ9NUDNJeyDffAD37mkucIo+hVdwL5Zagtpz6 qCvL4qsZPrchBxBiVnVcwpOAmslItAawb/iW8EqpxqN5acEyjQtxFTbgWjX9Ccni1aQs G0yVBcDowE44ECPmfJL12RfRc52C+B5Y+1L7I= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=bFdHAzyWrqoowwuWc5iBCjCzSIEVNnNy/vAntw0eEwcJES7TuEvRPKhDjBgOY0CqOY B7up3OQuLQJZ3kMQ1kCDkh7V21dsrfP3dhaMgTsUefMW/cW4iGozr6AMIaZLCpYpLE/Q zEjqxTpdnQJEzhT01qf+/HnRSoOvCOn8h4ttc= Original-Received: by 10.204.118.209 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Apr 2010 05:20:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4BB5D7B5.4040101@wxs.nl> Original-Received: by 10.204.162.199 with SMTP id w7mr2776228bkx.211.1270210856165; Fri, 02 Apr 2010 05:20:56 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: ntg-context@ntg.nl X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: mailing list for ConTeXt users List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl Errors-To: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.tex.context:57659 Archived-At: On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Hans Hagen wrote: > well, i use mkiv exclusively so that might be a sign that it's not that bad; > the main issue is to keep mkiv and luatex in sync Good to know :) I would much prefer mkiv as well, as luatex seems much easier to grok than TeX. I have the luck to be entering typographical programming at a new stage. To what degree can luatex be relied on to accomplish all that TeX macros can? Does certain functionality still require TeX code? Re: documentation, Perhaps a thing to do in the meantime is start a section on the wiki where we do a command by command description of what different macros accomplish? (Apologies if I'm mincing terminologies here). Starting with the undocumented ones, but then working back and providing a bit of insight into use cases, such as what 'middle' may mean in a given instance, or that it's the best/required option (this point is still fuzzy to me). The command ref is just not insightful at my level of TeX. The thesis case study is concurrent typesetting of itself in HTML, ODT, and ConTeXt. Part of the idea is to interrogate different capabilities and comparing the processes between the formats for accomplishing the same thing (toggle-able sidenotes instead of footnote/endnote citations in ConTeXt vs HTML, for instance). So in that sense there should be more tutorial style content available for the wiki. I'll be pestering the list for help in those areas, I'm sure. ___________________________________________________________________________________ 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 ___________________________________________________________________________________