Hello, Here's some more work for you Patrick, in case you get bored. (I guess I'll soon be removed from the list as a spammer/abuser if I continue writing mails such as this one :) What do the others think about it? # Source browser Can you "escape" control characters when searching through the source in ConTeXtgarden? For example, \def\somecommand now has to be written as\\def\\somecommand. And the search field is slightly small (only 20 characters). Well, I admit, these limitations can all be overcome by asking Mr. Google for "\def\someveryveryverylongcommand site:contextgarden.net" or by "grep"-ing on my hard disk. Also, after the search the right window is empty and sometimes 20 hits are found on the left. What about adding some context around the search term? For example one line before and one line after each hit (like Google does)? Once you have that, the same could be done for single files (if a specific word appears in one file more than once than you can select a file and see only the hits found + some lines before and after). If you also add <a name="linenumber"> to the web pages with sources, than you can click on a hit and go directly to the line number where the search term occurs. # texshow-web I've just noticed that there's no possibility to describe single options for the commands. Take \setuplayout for example. Describing such huge collection of parameters in plain text is not clear, synoptic any more. It would be great if there would be a possibility to add descriptions for: - the command as such (already there) - every pair of braces (only one for \setuplayout), has to be visible if it is optional or not - every parameter inside a single brace - every single option for that parameter (for example: width=middle means that ...), default has to be marked Some classification/hierarchy/labeling of the commands could also be added, but this has to be thought of well before starting to implement it. For example "page layout", "floats", "mathematics", "colors", "metapost", "language", "core functions", ... The top-level classification could probably be taken from prefixes of the source files. Enabling the Wiki functionality (bold, italic, tables ... <texcode> and <context>) and linking it to the source browser (to the place where \def\thisspecificcommand is) would also add another dimensionality. It would probably not be 100% compatible with the pretty-much-textbased texshow program, but ... I could imagine that one day something similar as modules.pdf (texshow.pdf) could be made from that page with pretty good documentation of (all ?) ConTeXt commands. The ability to add commands is already there I think (I have never tried it out yet). What about adding commands for (official and third-party) modules? It should be separated from the main page, but still offering the same functionality. I was also thinking about making some interface for translations of commands (for example: when a new third-party module is there, someone could translate it without much effort, some more exotic languages could be translated step-by-step, and new commands in ConTeXt could be found quickly and translated - the dutch interface is probably up-to-date, but I doubt that other translators are constantly checking if anything new appeared). But these things are much more conservative (commands may not change once they are translated) and probably not worth the effort yet. Finally a "five-minute-work" request after all that philosophizing: can you add link to the .po files under "special" in texshow-web and a "submit new .po version" button next to it? Mojca