Re: [NTG-context] muse, pandoc and context

Hi Jean and Gour, Thanks for the comments. I would prefer muse, but superscripts/subscripts are extremely common in biology, not just for chemical formula, and maybe there are more things missing I didn't come across so far. On the other hand, tables didn't work well in markdown --> pandoc --> context. If there is no way from reST to context, it's no use to me. Conclusion: there seems to be no good solution... Cheers, Jörg Gour wrote:

...

...

...

...

...

"Jörg" == Jörg Hagmann writes:

Hello,

Jörg> Dear list members,

Jörg> Despite using a text editor (emacs) and context almost Jörg> exclusively, I need a way to communicate with other members of the Jörg> institute.

I was in the similar boat - using Emacs with muse markup but wanting to have something which is more 'standard'- it's not that everyone is using Emacs (yet) :-)

Jörg> I'm evaluating two possibilities: 1. Writing in markdown and using Jörg> pandoc for conversion to either context or something openable by a Jörg> word processor.

I tried with markdown and gave it up - it's too limiting for my writing needs.

Jörg> I would like to know the following: - Has anybody done the same Jörg> and come to a conclusion? Reasons? - Is my impression correct Jörg> that with muse one has fewer possibilities such as Jörg> sub/superscripts?

I've settled on reST which is richer markup (see e.g. http://docutils.sourceforge.net/docs/ref/rst/roles.html#subscript) which is more standard than 'muse' and it enables easy conversion to *.html (e.g. sphinx produces nice output from *.reST), and there is even direct conversion to pdf with rst2pdf. Of course, you can enjoy rst-mode as well.

In regard to the ConTeXt side of the equation, I hope that Pandoc will get full parser for reST and then it will be possible to use it produce nice ConTeXt as well (see Pandoc' archive) or we should write and/or ask (I did) for ConTeXt back-end in docutils ;)

Sincerely, Gour