On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Sietse Brouwer
I liked the bit where Dave asked about the process Mari's company uses, and that Mari also went into the issue of "so *we* use it, but how do we deal with others who don't use it?"
Could you tell that I've had that discussion more than once? Sometimes I really wonder how difficult it is to understand the sentence "The original format is *not* a Word (or indeed word processor) document". "Remind me again why we use this strange and difficult system" is another all-time favourite that pops up regularly. [The answers are given in the interview, in case you are reading just this message without checking out the links.] Yes, short-term it may appear difficult in an average office environment. Long-term, I still think ConTeXt was and is the best alternative out of the available options because of its versatility. The requirements have changed over the years and will change again - I foresee tablet-sized interactivity in the near future - but I have not needed new tools, just to learn new ways of using what I have. And the first ConTeXt files I wrote still mostly work; they may need a little bit of fiddling before compiling on MkIV, but a lot less than what a structured Word2000 file needs on Word2010 (e.g. TOCs have a tendency to go bad between versions, figure placement can also be tricky). A lot of patience, some fighting spirit (and maybe a bit of luck) is required if one plans to go the same way, but it can be done and should be considered as one option among other possibilities. Regards, Mari