On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 8:44 PM, James Fisher
ConTeXt was not created to produce documentation for ConTeXt. This is not the point. The point is that code documentation of ConTeXt can be made with ConTeXt . see for example http://foundry.supelec.fr/gf/project/modules/scmsvn We don't need Sphinx or similar, but of course Hans can decide to use it.
HTML is typographically crude, but, and this is important, *informationally*, HTML (and the web and friends) is far from crude. true and your job is good.
Mmm, yes, you've made quite a lot of demands there on the curious programmer having stumbled across ConTeXt ... None is saying that it's easy. And, really, it's not easy.
I don't think so. The "just study the code" approach shows an awfully austere, reductionist philosophy. True but I have not said this. TeX comes with TeXBook ("high-mid-low" level" manual ) and Tex-The program- (the code) It's the same here, more or less.
Humans understand things from the top down. It's the computers that work from the bottom up. Humans understand things in bottom-up, top-down , try-and-error and probably other ways that we can understand enough to formalize. Working with TeX is a mix of bottom-up, top-down try-and-error and fortune.
I think you're thinking of 'forking' as something dangerous (yeah, the word sounds painful), as something that will fragment the community, as something that destroys the concept of 'authority'. It's really not. Where you get forking you get merging at roughly the same rate.
No, not dangerous. Actually useless . And yes, actually community and authority are important in this context. Why is so hard to understand ?
Why are they the only contributors? See Aditya. Apart from translations, Taco and Hans are the only persons that actually are able to produce a minimal, complete and exhaustive documentation.
-- luigi