Hi Hans, Thanks for the message below, it is always a pleasure to get detailed comments and corrections list yours. So far, I have been te person that has written most of the updates to the two manual chapters. However, I am not yet ready to get back to that task, so I am redirecting your message to dev-context for safe keeping. And who knows, maybe someone else will step in ... Best wishes, Taco -------- Original Message -------- Subject: context manual Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 11:19:33 +0200 From: Hans van der Meer To: Taco Hoekwater Taco, I do not know who writes/maintains the new context manual texts. I suspect it is not you, given everything you have on your workbench. Would you be so kind as to forward this to the author/maintainer? I have studied somewhat on the texts "Typography" and "Fonts" and have some remarks. Apart from pointing out a few typos I hope to contribute positively by delineating passages that were unclear to me and make suggestions for these. The pagenumbering is that from the pdf files retrieved from the website about a month ago. I would like to express my appreciation for this work, really needed in view of the fact that the original manuals start showing their age. My comments, therefore, do not imply any criticism. with best regards Hans van der Meer Chapter on Typography page 14 typo: ... the nearest smaller body font environment is that is already defined [first is superfluous] page 20 typo in legenda Table 1.8: ... define hw and cg as 'lucida handwriting' [missing ti] page 26: the text below the grey block describing \definefontfeature seems no to describe the second parameter IDENTIFIER. In fact, below the block there is: The second argument is a mix, and I think that should read: The third argument is... Then the description of the second argument is missing. Further down the descriptions of tlig and trep are about texligatures and texquotes, respectively. The near identical texts made me look very hard for the difference (at first it looked to me an artifact from cut and paste!); I suggest to reformulate so as to draw more attention to their different purposes. Chapter on Fonts page 2 suggested clarification at the end of the first paragraph below the block defining \definefontsynonym: ... replacement possible. Beware, an injudicious choice of successive replacements can induce an infinite loop and the bottom level is never reached. page 2 typo below example: In this example, the argument [interchanged letters] page 2 example at bottom of the page [file:Iwoa-Regular]: I came about a situation where for a pfb access it was absolute necessary to add the suffix .tfm in order to distinguish from another font definition. So perhaps add a line to the example where that suffix is explicitely used. page 3 above definition of \setupfontsynonym typo: percolate [not perculate according to my dictionary, this typo is found elsewhere too] page 3 in the definition block for \setupfontsynonym: I find the "inherits from \definefontsynonym" difficult to grasp. Does it mean that the second parameter here is the same as the third parameter found on the previous page in the definition of \definefontsynonym? Then the different argument position clouds the understanding. Furthermore I wrestled with the word 'inherit'; I tend to understand that in the sense as classes and subclasses in object oriented programming languages (having these in my background obviously). But I think another word than inherit would make clearer that it is 'the same argument as..' Example on page 5 \ContextLogo \char 2: I interprete the \ContextLogo as the font switch, but why does \char 2 result in the text CONTEXT? \definebodyfont example at top of page 7: tf=tir at 10pt Here I cannot find what 'tir' means, it just 'falls out of the sky' (a Dutch saying). Although I happen to know that tir is the name of a tfm file in the Times font set, I suspect that many reader will not. I would suggest something added above like: ... commercial font in which 'tir' is one of the font files. Long \definebodyfont example page 7: Lots of readers will know that cmr and friends are the Computer Modern Fonts. But wouldn't it be nice to introduce the font filename in the text above with something like: Hans Hagen started out using the Computer Modern Roman fonts (cmr). Example of combining \ss and \sl on page 8: As I understand it, only the third line of the example is really a combination of \ss and \sl, the two lines above only about \ss and \sl separately. I guess the sentence above the example should reflect this. \definebodyfont examples on page 8: The first, long \definebodyfont example defines besides tf also bf, it, etc. The text below carries the suggestion that the three \definebodyfont's below it are doing the same as the long one before. I suggest disambigue with some dots like so: [tf=Sans sa 1.000, bf=...] At bottom of the same page 8: I suggest adding an explicite clarification of what 'default' means, for example: And in the actual ConTeXt core the default body fonts are in fact defined with commands like this, where 'default' stands for a whole bunch of sizes: Below defintion block of \definebodyfont on page 9: "You can even define totally new keywords, if you want that." Either an example of that here or a reference to the same later in the text would be nice. Now the text seems an appetizer that subsequently is witheld from the reader. Above definition block of \definebodyfont on page 10 typo: can be used to define [not defined]. And below that block: definition [missing i] Below definition block of \definebodyfont on page 10: The sentence "This was used in ... the identifier default because these definitions were to be used from within other definitions." Is unclear to me, I fail to see the 'because'. On page 10: The two blocks defining each a variant of \definebodyfont I find confusing. The differ only in the position of the arguments, IDENTIFIER in first/third position. I would like to see more (explicit) explanation here, especially on the purpose of these variants. Also the sentence with ".. so there is clear code that can be shown..." leaves me in the dark. Or should it read "... there is no clear code...? At about twothirds of page 11 in 1.5: "...there can be up to three arguments, and these two sets of arguments..." What are the two sets in the three arguments? Or is meant the arguments of \usetypescript and \starttypescript, respectively? Then it would possibly be better to make that explicit. At the bottom of page 11: "\usetypescript appears in the list that is the second argument of \starttypescript..." The text leaves the third argument in limbo. Is that third argument not matched? How then relate the two arguments of the example \usetypescript[palatino][ec] to the third argument of \starttypescipt? It was not clear to me. Below table on page 12 typo: though [was tough] In that same sentence on page 12: "Extra arguments to \usetypescript are ignored..." Are these extra arguments a third, fourth, fifth, etc that can be added to \usetypescript? What is their role than? If not in MKIV in MKII perhaps? Same page 1.5.1 first paragraph: "especially to the third, fourth,..." suggestion is "especially to its third, fourth,..." Same page last paragraph typo: precise [was preciese] Third paragraph on page 13 typo: searched [missing r] Last example on page 13: \typescriptthree I know this is the macro to which the third argument of the \starttypescript is defined. But I am not sure the general reader is aware of that here. I cannot remember seeing that explained in the text before. First paragraph page 14: Continuing my last remark, I would suggest an addition: "Because this is the third argument (\typescriptthree was defined to ec)..." Last sentence before 1.5.2 on page 15: I would prefer a rephrase to "... the Palatino-specific typescripts did acutally define font synonyms, loaded a map file, and called a predefined bodyfont." I find the "did actually do anything except" confusing, especially the 'except'. In table under 1.5.2. on page 15: I find the [*] arguments not explained and wonder what it means. Obviously not the "matches everything known from grep" because in one of the examples [*] stands opposed to [all]. Below table on page 15: Can you please elaborate [dtp], it would clarify the significance of the example. In 1.5.3 starting on page 17: I think I can remember an email where Hans Hagen told me about \enableboldmath needed to make boldmath active. I cannot find it mentioned here. Is it obsolete now? Second square root example on page 18: It says "Bold math looks like this:" but below it I see four lines of which the last only in bold. And I have difficulty to see the difference in typeface with the same example above, at first sight they appear the same and one has to look carefully. Perhaps the difference pointed out in the text? On page 18 over to page 19: "We can also use an indirect method:" Then in the following example I have difficulty to understand the meaning of "indirect method". First paragraph on page 21: "We cannot on the forehand..." My knowledge of the english language is not as good as I would like, but cannot you write here: "We cannot know beforehand in what font..." But I might be totally wrong here. Last paragraph before 1.7 on page 21 typo: already [missing e] This is as far as I got.