![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/eb7e397a43c04bc34321d579c5e15906.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Well, well,
ConTeXt can help you if you give him a little love and don't try pull
all triggers at once. Having written my Ph.D. in LaTeX and published
couple of books in ConTeXT I can assure you, ConTeXt is surprisingly
better suited for "scientific" texts (oops sorry, I just mean text
with footnotes, bibliography, a couple of indexes, list of
illustrations, definitions whatever) even if you disregard its
typographic quality. That's of course my entirely subjective opinion.
Piotr
2009/12/29 Manuel P.
Il 29/12/2009 3.48, berend@pobox.com ha scritto:
Manuel> Another "problem" is the "fluidity" of ConTeXt: it changes Manuel> rapidly and the documentation is left behind.
Maybe for some things, but I'm using a manual from 2004 and from my point of view very little has changed.
I would say the interface is remarkably stable, so hopefully that might be some encouragement to come back one day.
Sure!
-- Manuel P.
___________________________________________________________________________________ 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 ___________________________________________________________________________________