> On Dec 8, 2003, at 2:33 PM, Henning Hraban Ramm wrote:
> > Am Montag, 08.12.03, um 18:20 Uhr (Europe/Zurich) schrieb Bob
> > Kerstetter:
> >> ConTeXt is very attractive because of its detailed control, layers,
> >> colors, few or no packages(!!!!!), magical developers, and on and on.
> >> It can obvious produce PDF. Can it also produce HTML and Word from
> >> the same document?
> > The normal way to get both PDF and HTML is using a XML source.
> > You know of ConTeXts native XML mode?
> > AFAIK you can import XML or HTML into MS Office, too, so you need no
> > real Word DOC output.
> > Or perhaps there's an other XML to RTF/DOC Konverter...
> I know XML source should work, but at least for me, creating XML source
> is unproductive. I work with a text editor and find writing this:
> ``Hello world,'' says HAL.
> much more productive than writing this:
> <p>“Hello world”</p>, says HAL.
> Maybe I'm missing something, but for writing, XML's markup requirements
> -- which are invisible to field-based data entry screen -- are way too
> intense for hand-editing. TeX source is much less verbose. It is easier
> to create, proof (both visually and audibly), spell check
> troubleshoot, etc. I have not seen an editor capable of doing XML
> source in a productive manner, like (La)TeX with text editor.
This is probably taboo, but surely the smart thing to do is start from Word, generate some XML with macros, and produce some HTML with stylesheets, some PDF with ConTeXt. BTW you can generate some simple Context with VB macros and hand-edit -- saves a whole load of mundane stuff. I can go from a web page to PDF in under 15 minutes using the Word macros I have for Context.
“Since light travels faster than sound, isn’t that why
some people appear bright until you hear them speak”
— Steve Wright