On Fri, 26 May 2006 20:01:57 -0600, Idris Samawi Hamid
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