On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 8:44 PM, James Fisher <
jameshfisher@gmail.com> wrote:
>ConTeXt was not created to produce documentation for ConTeXt.
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.
--