On 5 Mar 2010, at 13:50, Thomas A. Schmitz wrote:
On Mar 5, 2010, at 11:01 AM, richard.stephens@converteam.com wrote:
No, not like those. I mean like a real manual. I read the book about Hasselt---a few examples without explanations.
I am absolutely gobsmacked (astounded, astonished) at some of the comments on this and other threads! "ConTeXt - an Excursion" and "ConTeXt the Manual" together are wonderful. I still consult them at least once a week after 4 year's use. If you actually tried the examples in the former, rather than just reading them, you would be an expert user within 2 days!
Hear hear! I couldn't agree more and am happy that a voice of reason appears in this somewhat meandering thread!
Indeed! I would sign this myself!
It would be nice to think that the community could construct documentation, but good, coherent documentation is much harder to produce than good code! It works for collections of small articles (WikiPedia etc), but I've never seen a good book written by a community.
also +1 Wasn't there this wonderful saying that a camel is a horse designed by committee?
+1 Willi
Thomas ______________________________________________________________________ _____________ If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!
maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ ntg-context webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net archive : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ______________________________________________________________________ _____________