Hi Jérôme,
However, this seems rather far from the pdf manuals and does not really help a newbie as I am.
Definately it could be improved. In IT, almost everything is suboptimal starting the second after it's birth. Perhaps we should continue this discussion on the developers list, dev-context@ntg.nl? It is likely we will spend some other mails on this subject, and perhaps it is better not to clutter the general list. Anybody willing to discuss/help out can easily subscribe to that list (even if just for a while). Is that OK?
More precisely:
0 - Category search is missing. It is well known that searching by contents or by command name won't give the proper result if the search request is not well formed a priori. Each command should have a list of associated key words, allowing smart navigation and filtering For example, the sectionning commands (including toc, headers and so on) could be gathered in one big category.
That could be as simple as allowing users / viewers to attach one or two key words/categories to the current commands, I think. There can be a predefined set of those, and there will not be all that many. It could also easily be backported to the XML data. Patrick?
1 - The examples oftenly need output to let the user really understand the effect. Moreover, the information available in the graphical output is more obvious thus more efficient.
Perhaps the examples could be fed through the Live ConTeXt, just like the wiki examples?
2 - Missing code template(s) to paste into the source, copy/paste does noot help when really needed. Of course, I can grab them from contextgarden but it is there both hidden and not well formatted.
I am not sure what you mean.
3 - The description only concerns the command. Each key should also have its own description.
Yes.
Each predefined value should also have its own description.
Also yes. (both have been discussed before but never implemented due to lack of manpower).
Then the user interface can provide a layout a la headerdoc or some kind of rollup tooltips.
4 - The data storage model for a size range seems weird. The range 5pt ... 12pt is coded with an ordered list of 3 values "5pt" '..." and "12pt" whereas it means an unordered list of 8 values: "5pt", "6pt", ..., "12pt". This latter data model obviously turns into a pop up button with a list of sizes.
It is even a bit weirder. "5pt ... 12pt" usually stands for "any font size that is already defined using \definebodyfont". Except on the command itself, of course. There it means: "any font size you wish to define for use in the other commands that use 5pt ... 12pt". I'm smiling as I write this :-) It really should be an abstract type, like "cd:dimension" instead of those three values.
5 - The command variants might need specials (eg \setupinterlinespace).
Yes, the current solution for that command is not very nice. But there are more than a few commands with such variant calling conventions, and it is hard to come up with a nice-looking solution. Suggestions for solutions are welcome.
6 - Sometimes the acceptable values depend on the context (eg arguments of \ref), it means that all the relevant information is not static and the data model should provide some entry points. But at first glance this is a very advanced feature which cost might be unaffordable.
You mean crossover functionality with reftex/auctex style programs? Would be nice to have I assume, but hard to do portably, and not really worth the effort if it cannot be done in a portable manner. (always speaking from my point of view, of course. YMMV)
Finally, it seems that the underlying data model needs more entropy.
Thermodynaics says it will probably move in the right direction, once it starts moving ;-) Cheers, Taco