h h extern said this at Fri, 10 Dec 2004 22:38:27 +0100:
Also, what's the status of contml? I like the idea of it as a simple, structural, basic markup that ConTeXt handles with zero effort, but is anyone actually using it?
we sometimes mix it into other xml docs; i have no problem with extending it; actualy, (see mag-0008.pdf), i want to map most context directly onto xml so that we have a rather complete xml input syntax
Yes, indeed. I took a look at the magazine again last night, and it was
put in an entirely new light. I'm very curious to work with x-fx now...
I've been working on a general-ish conversion script from a new Mac
application. I'd like to offer most of ContML as basic level constructs,
but it should be possible for a user to add their own tags. If they can
tap into fx:anything tags, it should make people (hi, Bruce!) fairly happy.
My first reaction/critique of the approach was: why not fix at least one
of the problems of TeX: that it's "a mixture between typesetting and
programming features" as you say?
What I propose is clearly a debatable XML-design issue, but it seemed
strange that fx:definelayout and fx:p were put into the same namespace.
Why do the formatting definitions share the same (theoretical) schema as
markup? Your documents keep these categories separate, as one would
expect. Why not encourage people to put them in separate files, as with
"normal" ConTeXt workflows? The designer and author are more clearly
divorced when you don't assume an XSLT-centric flow, right?
(or, is this already planned with this tidbit from foxet: fs = setup)
I'm curious about how the namespacing would work, though, because I want
to use (and enable the use of) these nice fs:setuphead -like
configurations with my hybrid ContML++ documents. Will: