First of all, I'm grateful for your offer, and hope that you find it valuable indeed. However, I must say that this isn't what I had in mind. I wanted to create more of a reference, a complete reference, and one that's of course not meant to be read from cover to cover. What you're suggesting sounds more like a tutorial to me. Don't get me wrong: we need both a reference and a tutorial. If necessary, I'll create a quick tutorial that demonstrates how to quickly use ConTeXt, and gives hints on where to look further in my book, or whatever else you and others see needs to be written. This is a bit interesting, though. Should I start with a tutorial, or the reference? I personally lean more towards the reference, but of course if the community thinks that the tutorial first would be more valuable, then that'll get the higher priority. What I had in mind was a single reference that taught you all you needed to become as experienced with ConTeXt as Hans Hagen et al, and all the information you'll need to essentially be able to achieve whatever you want. I found (and hope the ConTeXt developers take no offense) that the documentation for how to become an advanced user was nonexistent, and for some specific cases more scattered around. Thus, the book was born. In other words, it's a book that teaches you how to become an advanced ConTeXt user, certainly far beyond "A not so short introduction to ConTeXt". Would the ConTeXt community more prefer such a book, or a more quick introductory book for ConTeXt? Because I don't think these two would serve well as one, but rather the former backing up the latter, i.e., two different books. Thanks.