On 7/14/2014 3:03 PM, Rob Heusdens wrote:

Hello G / all

I started using ConText about a year ago. But as a "novice" to Context (and Tex in general) I can say is that this would be the first thing to work on, because currently it is a bit of a pain to start using ConText in any serious way, because there is a lack of up-to-date documentation.

The mailing list here does make a good contribution to explaining things (I did not use it before, but while the Contextgarden was offline for a while last week, this was the only place for getting needed info) that the documentation and contextgarden wiki misses.

But I think a regular user would want to have up-to-date documentation, and many examples worked out and a whole bunch of ready to use (well documented) templates/start documents for all kinds of use-cases.

The contextgarden wiki often does not provide well enough information.

There are commands with over 20 different parameters, and the most of them are not documented at all. So, a novice user can only use the commands in a trivial sense, but for advanced use the command provides, there is no documentation on how it is supposed to work.

This is a pitty, because the ConText distribution really offers a lot of features one want for avanced typesetting jobs, but too often one wants to understand the behaviour of some command or use the advanced options which are provided, but can't because the documenation is too poor to make sense of it.

To look in the source is not a a good replacement for that I guess (only for advanced users which co-develop ConText).

Well at least the mailing list provides the answers one wants, but it would be far better I guess if such information would be up-to-date on contexgarden.

Can we make this a feature request with HIGH priority?

quite some sub-systems are described in their own manuals (fonts, tables, xml, ...) and these manuals are quite up to date (and easier to maintain than one big fat manual also, additional documentation is something that users need to participate in (just pick a topic) even if it has high priority, that doesn't mean that those involved have much free time left to do that next to their regular work (as usual most development is done in spare time) so, patience is needed, Hans

...

Hello guys,

I am restarting a book project I started a several years back. At that time I set up a copy of another project I am working on in ConTeXt, so with the products/environment/chapters structure, added Mac fonts to my setup, using texexec for compilation.

Now that I am restarting, I am returning to ConTeXt. The first thing I did was go to contextgarden and look for updated documentation. What I found was the over 10-year old documentation (contextref.pdf) with green boxes stating things like “TODO: Add some text about recent developments, especially the split between mkii and mkiv”.

Is there up-to-date and reasonably complete ConTeXt documentation these days?

G ___________________________________________________________________________________ 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 ___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________ 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 ___________________________________________________________________________________

-- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | voip: 087 875 68 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------

On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Gerben Wierda wrote:

I like ConTeXt (still do, I liked its approach when I first encountered it). But the project is more the ongoing private tinkering of a small in-crowd (that communicates with some followers).

ConTeXt is managed a bit like a small group of researchers sharing a couple of complex and undocumented models/programs and tinkering with them as they go along. It’s an activity without formal design, but with a lot of trial-and-error/testing.

Given that status (and the fact that it has had that status for over a decennium), I don’t expect it to ever become a serious product that is (semi-)professionally managed. I prefer content over management every day, but something like this needs some minimal management. That requires both time (=money) and capabilities. Besides, the tinkering researchers may not be inclined to do that, they want to tinker.

Basically all the development in ConTeXt is voluntarily. Pro bono. Besides "tinkering", Hans still needs to earn some money from somewhere. I find it amazing how much time he already spends doing good things for the community. But he's not omnipotent. If there is interest from some commercial company to fund the project enough to allow some people to work full-time on documentation (including paying Hans to allow him to spend more time on the project), I'm sure that it could be done.

BTW, you can’t be serious asking the users to provide the documentation, can you?

There are many excellent books out there written by "writers", not the authors of software. (I didn't even get a manual for Windows or OS X where the companies make big money. Certain things or tricks can only be done when hackers find a way to do X without anyone documenting feature X. And the last phone I bought also came without any documentation whatsoever.) There are more than enough *users* of ConTeXt capable of coming up with proper documentation (depending on the definition of user of course, but one could count Taco and Wolfgang as users and they are certainly not the only ones knowing ConTeXt from inside out). But there's of course always a question of motivation (combined with time and money of course). ConTeXt comes with full source code, so users can easily study the source code. The project could easily employ two people to work full time just to keep up with the pace of development (once they would catch up). Ohloh estimates that it took more than 300 person-years to write the source code for example ;) Sure, the estimate is problematic because ConTeXt includes the complete Unicode as well as all hyphenation patterns which simply count as lines. But it's still an enormous project. Oven once you remove the hyphenation patterns and char-def.lua, there are still 36 MB remaining. The pgf project has a 1200 page manual for less that 5 MB of source code. LaTeX has a gazillion of manuals and if you don't know what package you should be looking for, it's not really helping. I agree that it would be awesome if there was complete documentation available + maybe three manuals/tutorials from beginner to master, but you cannot expect it from Hans to do all the work on his own. Mojca

Ah, the great documentation project! The problem concerning writing documentation is that it must be done by someone who knows ConTeXt well enough to know what to say or else know where to look or ask about subjects that are less well known to him or her. Many attempts at "improving" the documentation have been started. Anyone is free to write a book, but is there enough of a market to make it commercially viable? Yet a good book can also be a key to the success of any system. As Hans wrote earlier, one possibility is to fund a documentation project that would allow someone to devote the necessary time to achieve this (as well as to allow a few key developers to take the time necessary to assist in this project, as Mojca suggests). We would need to identify who could fund such a project as well as who could be qualified to carry it through. Right now, the community (and in particular Hans) is doing a pretty good job of providing resources "in our spare time". Alan On Tue, 15 Jul 2014 16:42:25 +0200 Mojca Miklavec wrote:

On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Gerben Wierda wrote:

...

I like ConTeXt (still do, I liked its approach when I first encountered it). But the project is more the ongoing private tinkering of a small in-crowd (that communicates with some followers).

ConTeXt is managed a bit like a small group of researchers sharing a couple of complex and undocumented models/programs and tinkering with them as they go along. It’s an activity without formal design, but with a lot of trial-and-error/testing.

Given that status (and the fact that it has had that status for over a decennium), I don’t expect it to ever become a serious product that is (semi-)professionally managed. I prefer content over management every day, but something like this needs some minimal management. That requires both time (=money) and capabilities. Besides, the tinkering researchers may not be inclined to do that, they want to tinker.

Basically all the development in ConTeXt is voluntarily. Pro bono. Besides "tinkering", Hans still needs to earn some money from somewhere. I find it amazing how much time he already spends doing good things for the community. But he's not omnipotent.

If there is interest from some commercial company to fund the project enough to allow some people to work full-time on documentation (including paying Hans to allow him to spend more time on the project), I'm sure that it could be done.

...

BTW, you can’t be serious asking the users to provide the documentation, can you?

There are many excellent books out there written by "writers", not the authors of software.

(I didn't even get a manual for Windows or OS X where the companies make big money. Certain things or tricks can only be done when hackers find a way to do X without anyone documenting feature X. And the last phone I bought also came without any documentation whatsoever.)

There are more than enough *users* of ConTeXt capable of coming up with proper documentation (depending on the definition of user of course, but one could count Taco and Wolfgang as users and they are certainly not the only ones knowing ConTeXt from inside out). But there's of course always a question of motivation (combined with time and money of course).

ConTeXt comes with full source code, so users can easily study the source code. The project could easily employ two people to work full time just to keep up with the pace of development (once they would catch up). Ohloh estimates that it took more than 300 person-years to write the source code for example ;) Sure, the estimate is problematic because ConTeXt includes the complete Unicode as well as all hyphenation patterns which simply count as lines. But it's still an enormous project.

Oven once you remove the hyphenation patterns and char-def.lua, there are still 36 MB remaining. The pgf project has a 1200 page manual for less that 5 MB of source code. LaTeX has a gazillion of manuals and if you don't know what package you should be looking for, it's not really helping.

I agree that it would be awesome if there was complete documentation available + maybe three manuals/tutorials from beginner to master, but you cannot expect it from Hans to do all the work on his own.

Mojca

On 7/16/2014 5:08 PM, Russ Urquhart wrote:

I have been a tech writer for more than 25 years. I have been using and learning Context for the last few years. I would agree with everyone in thanking Hans and everyone else for this great product and it's support. It's been mentioned that the source is available to view. Is it possible that, given some standard of commenting with the code , a tool like Doxygen could be used to compile a reference guide of sorts?

the interface is described in cont-en.xml (should be updated, yes) there's also: context --ctx=s-mod font-sel.mkvi

My dream would be to be able to work on a Context documentation effort.

Russ

Sent from my iPhone

...

On Jul 16, 2014, at 5:14 AM, Alan BRASLAU wrote:

Ah, the great documentation project!

The problem concerning writing documentation is that it must be done by someone who knows ConTeXt well enough to know what to say or else know where to look or ask about subjects that are less well known to him or her. Many attempts at "improving" the documentation have been started.

Anyone is free to write a book, but is there enough of a market to make it commercially viable? Yet a good book can also be a key to the success of any system.

As Hans wrote earlier, one possibility is to fund a documentation project that would allow someone to devote the necessary time to achieve this (as well as to allow a few key developers to take the time necessary to assist in this project, as Mojca suggests). We would need to identify who could fund such a project as well as who could be qualified to carry it through.

Right now, the community (and in particular Hans) is doing a pretty good job of providing resources "in our spare time".

Alan

On Tue, 15 Jul 2014 16:42:25 +0200 Mojca Miklavec wrote:

...

...

On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Gerben Wierda wrote:

I like ConTeXt (still do, I liked its approach when I first encountered it). But the project is more the ongoing private tinkering of a small in-crowd (that communicates with some followers).

ConTeXt is managed a bit like a small group of researchers sharing a couple of complex and undocumented models/programs and tinkering with them as they go along. It’s an activity without formal design, but with a lot of trial-and-error/testing.

Given that status (and the fact that it has had that status for over a decennium), I don’t expect it to ever become a serious product that is (semi-)professionally managed. I prefer content over management every day, but something like this needs some minimal management. That requires both time (=money) and capabilities. Besides, the tinkering researchers may not be inclined to do that, they want to tinker.

Basically all the development in ConTeXt is voluntarily. Pro bono. Besides "tinkering", Hans still needs to earn some money from somewhere. I find it amazing how much time he already spends doing good things for

---

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 ___________________________________________________________________________________

-- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | voip: 087 875 68 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------

I am also a technical editor and have been using context for about five years. Maybe my typesetting needs are simple, but the wiki and manuals have served me well. When they don't, this list is quick to respond. Thanks to everyone for the effort. If you want a fund for tech doc, have you considered something like bountysource.com? Best, Mica

As I wrote in another thread, the state of the docs worries me too. I take it that the suggestion to study the source was not serious, and perhaps it is indeed a matter of priorities. As a new user I have a strong opinion that the documentation should be a higher priority than it seems to be. All the arguments about how many person-hours it would take and the huge task it is, in my eyes, only furthers the point that it is not considered as important as doing "real development". I consider the docs a core part of the project, and the code another part, hence the disagreement in regards to the priorities. Pro-bono or not is not an issue, since time is spent on the project in some form. Writing features that few people know about and are able to use is only half of the dev work. But I get it that documenting is a pain, and seemingly frivolous work. The separate manuals may have been good, but they look fragmented and there is no unified docs to go to when in doubt. And having one place to go is even easier to maintain than many. The wiki is a nice idea, but it needs much more rigour to function as real docs. Some suggestions. I'm assuming some form of wiki-like website that can be the contextgarden or (preferably) another official docs/wiki/wiki-like site. All the content of the manuals should be unified in this site. If a crowdsourcing/users-can-do-it approach is taken, a clear structure needs to be previously laid out, so that we know what blanks to fill. And even with collaboration/feedback, core people should do it. It is important that reviewing and check marking the new edits be done by some authoritative group, so that the community knows what to trust, what should work as documented so that we can report real issues. It is important to label the information as reviwed and up to date, and to which version it applies, mkii/mkiv If this structure is put on top of the context garden, some labeling is needed to distinguish the extra pages from the structural docs pages. There are many good examples out there of good docs structure and presentation. I'm willing to collaborate what I can with my limited knowledge and time, even if little while writing my master's thesis. Sorry to annoy with this again, YT 2014-07-15 11:55 GMT-03:00 luigi scarso :

On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Gerben Wierda wrote:

...

On 14 Jul 2014, at 19:29, Hans Hagen wrote:

quite some sub-systems are described in their own manuals (fonts, tables, xml, ...) and these manuals are quite up to date (and easier to maintain than one big fat manual

also, additional documentation is something that users need to participate in (just pick a topic)

even if it has high priority, that doesn't mean that those involved have much free time left to do that next to their regular work (as usual most development is done in spare time)

so, patience is needed,

I like ConTeXt (still do, I liked its approach when I first encountered it). But the project is more the ongoing private tinkering of a small in-crowd (that communicates with some followers).

ConTeXt is managed a bit like a small group of researchers sharing a couple of complex and undocumented models/programs and tinkering with them as they go along. It’s an activity without formal design, but with a lot of trial-and-error/testing.

Given that status (and the fact that it has had that status for over a *decennium*), I don’t expect it to ever become a serious product that is (semi-)professionally managed. I prefer content over management every day, but something like this needs some minimal management. That requires both time (=money) and capabilities. Besides, the tinkering researchers may not be inclined to do that, they want to tinker.

BTW, you can’t be serious asking the *users* to provide the documentation, can you?

These are still good

Fonts in ConTeXt Layouts in ConTeXt MetaFun manual MKII - MKIV, the history of LuaTeX

http://www.h2o-books.com/catalog/5

-- luigi

___________________________________________________________________________________ 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

___________________________________________________________________________________

On 7/15/2014 11:59 AM, Gerben Wierda wrote:

On 14 Jul 2014, at 19:29, Hans Hagen mailto:pragma@wxs.nl> wrote:

...

quite some sub-systems are described in their own manuals (fonts, tables, xml, ...) and these manuals are quite up to date (and easier to maintain than one big fat manual

also, additional documentation is something that users need to participate in (just pick a topic)

even if it has high priority, that doesn't mean that those involved have much free time left to do that next to their regular work (as usual most development is done in spare time)

so, patience is needed,

I like ConTeXt (still do, I liked its approach when I first encountered it). But the project is more the ongoing private tinkering of a small in-crowd (that communicates with some followers).

ConTeXt is managed a bit like a small group of researchers sharing a couple of complex and undocumented models/programs and tinkering with them as they go along. It’s an activity without formal design, but with a lot of trial-and-error/testing.

Given that status (and the fact that it has had that status for over a /decennium/), I don’t expect it to ever become a serious product that is (semi-)professionally managed. I prefer content over management every day, but something like this needs some minimal management. That requires both time (=money) and capabilities. Besides, the tinkering researchers may not be inclined to do that, they want to tinker.

BTW, you can’t be serious asking the /users/ to provide the documentation, can you?

Well, you need to keep this in mind: - we are using it ourselves (already for a long time) so we depend on it and so we keep it going - we spend most of our company time on development and support .. and we live with that - our roadmap does *not* include getting big (with open source as stepping stone), *not* messing with users by selling ourselves after a while, and *not* splitting between 'context for users' and 'context professional or enterprise', so everyone gets what we have (which also means that documentation will always be behind!) - we have no big projects that pay for development (from which we can then work on documentation) .. in fact, our projects are rather niche and special - we're quite satisfied with the users (they are demanding and creative) ... context never aimed at one-time-users Now, we don't ask users to provide documentation, but on the other hand, if you look at latex, lost of documentation starts at users. Maybe some day I find more time ... Hans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | voip: 087 875 68 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------

On 7/16/2014 12:26 AM, David Wooten wrote:

On Jul 15, 2014, at 2:59 AM, Gerben Wierda mailto:Gerben.Wierda@rna.nl> wrote:

...

I like ConTeXt (still do, I liked its approach when I first encountered it). But the project is more the ongoing private tinkering of a small in-crowd (that communicates with some followers).

ConTeXt is managed a bit like a small group of researchers sharing a couple of complex and undocumented models/programs and tinkering with them as they go along. It’s an activity without formal design, but with a lot of trial-and-error/testing.

Given that status (and the fact that it has had that status for over a /decennium/), I don’t expect it to ever become a serious product that is (semi-)professionally managed. I prefer content over management every day, but something like this needs some minimal management. That requires both time (=money) and capabilities. Besides, the tinkering researchers may not be inclined to do that, they want to tinker.

Agreed, though for my part with the opposite emphasis. I do not think ConTeXt is meant to be a “serious product”, as in /being developed to be a product in the “marketplace” of typesetting software — even open/free software. /My impression is exactly yours, it is being developed primarily for the purposes of Pragma—a small in-crowd no doubt—but with

don't get me wrong: the development is to a large extend possible because we can use it at pragma (it make sit possible to do things that often cannot be done otherwise) but most of the features that have been added the last years as well as numerous additional options are purely user driven: most styles we write are rather simple .. the complexity comes from the often messy or complex or to-be-manipulated content and range of products; so, it being mostly user driven (but within the constraints that we keep a relative stable core) also means that users have a responsibility for helping with documentation

extraordinarily generous support for a small community of non-Pragma people interested in using it. I’m /grateful/ to have access to ConTeXt, as for me it’s the only sane method of typesetting the kind of documents I wish to typeset — /not /LaTeX, /not /InDesign, /not /Plain TeX, … I can tell you that every question or suggestion I’ve had has been responded to in the most generous form in this community, which I cannot say about /any other/ platform I’ve used, typesetting or otherwise.

keep in mind that context has been part of the tex distributions for quite a while now (nearly 20 years), that there are others than me who know the source code pretty well (which means that it doesn't depend on pragma), that the context crowd has been actively involved in development of (and even triggered) general tex developments (..., luatex, mplib, fonts, ...) so it's not as isolated as you suggest. once the move from mkii to mkiv is finishes and luatex is kind of done, there might be time for writing more documentation; we're far from retiring of the other macro packages, plain tex is frozen, and latex dev is quite controlled too (anyone can write additional code for any macro package) (and the context mailing list is one of the more active tex related lists and not the smallest either)

It’s suspect to take umbrage on another’s behalf, but “tinkering researchers may not be inclined to do that, they want to tinker” — It’s absurd to suggest that Hans &co. are “tinkering” for the sake of tinkering.

sometimes we do, when we explore new posibilities, Hans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | voip: 087 875 68 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------

Hans Hagen writes:

(and the context mailing list is one of the more active tex related lists and not the smallest either)

I believe this is part of the problem as well of the solution - there is so much knowledge scattered in different posts here and if it could be put into manual form, there will be plenty of docs available. Otoh, there is nothing even remotely close to ConteXt when it comes to quality typesetting. ConTeXt is simply what LaTeX2e was supposed to be and the state of LaTeX3 is not very promising i nthe sense of having some release soon. <dreaming> If I'd be asked, my proposal would be for all LaTeX users to simply invest some time in learning to migrate to ConTeXt and similar advice for the developers as well which could skyrocket development of ConTeXt as well having ability to 'program' using Lua via LuaTeX. </dremaing> Sincerely, Gour -- One must deliver himself with the help of his mind, and not degrade himself. The mind is the friend of the conditioned soul, and his enemy as well.

On 20 Jul 2014, at 14:14, Gerben Wierda wrote:

I would gladly donate in a crowdfunding initiative for a good book. But how much is needed to make it happen?

BTW, as I have become a publisher in recent years I know now what to do, I can maybe help by acting as the publisher for the book. If an author of a group of authors can write a manuscript, I would be happy to fund the production of the book and host the sales of a PDF version (see http://bit.ly/1iNacG8 for how selling both print and PDF would work). If money is needed in advance for authors so they can live while writing, we could crowdsource that and repay the investors form the proceeds of the book. When the investment has been paid back, we could distribute the PDF for free or use the proceeds to fund updates and such. G

On 20 Jul 2014, at 22:24, Mojca Miklavec wrote:

On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Gerben Wierda wrote:

...

Sorry, you can’t expect users to be able to do that. Lamport created LaTeX *and* wrote the “LaTeX User’s Guide and Reference manual”.

<teasing> Indeed. Sorry, you can't do that to users. Christian Schenk also created MikTeX (I still have MikTeX files from 23 years ago) *and* is still developing it actively and answering emails from users. </teasing>

...

The authors mentioned below were all developers too. You need that level of understanding to write a manual.

What kind of developers? Did they contribute to the LaTeX core? (Many ConTeXt users are developers, but it highly depends what you count as a developer.)

Some contributed packages, some other stuff (even printer drivers). They all were deeply involved with the inside of TeX and LaTeX at a level that they would have to understand TeX and LaTeX to the core as they were developers in that environment

...

Hans & Taco: how much money would need to be raised to produce something of the quality of Kopka & Daly’s “Guide to LaTeX”? or Goossens, Mittelbach & Samarin’s “The LaTeX Companion”?

What do you mean with "of the quality of these books"? Having a similar number of pages written in comparable quality (something like a revised beginner's manual) or so complete in description of the functionality as the mentioned manuals?

I agree these are now outdated in several areas and less useful as they were half a decade ago. But something that is complete enough for a user (not a TeXnician), doesn’t contain too many white spots and certainly does not contain stuff that isn’t true anymore.

My estimate would be that a complete context reference with well-described options and including trivial examples would require cca. 10.000-50.000 pages. Maybe others have different estimates, but now do the math. (Existing manuals like MetaFun or the old cont-en.pdf are roughly 400 pages. But that's nowhere near 10 % of the ConTeXt functionality. One would need to document the whole TeX part, the whole metapost part, the whole lua part, the whole xml, all perl, ruby and lua scripts, write better man pages, probably list the whole Unicode to show the ConTeXt names in one appendix …)

If a tool needs 50.000 pages to document its use, you are in trouble (in more ways than one). I think in reality a set of manuals, with core functionality and all kinds of extras a manual of 500 pages and maybe a reference manual of the same size would be something useful and thus meaningful. Stuff like MetaFun can have its own manual and doesn’t need to be in a core ConTeXt manual. A user manual is enough. You don’t need a developer manual. So, documenting all the development you can do with ConTeXt (programming in lua and whatnot) would for me not be what is needed for a user manual. What a user manual does is what cont-en.pdf does, but then up to date and complete. G

Am Sun, 20 Jul 2014 23:07:32 +0200 schrieb Gerben Wierda:

...

My estimate would be that a complete context reference with well-described options and including trivial examples would require cca. 10.000-50.000 pages.

If a tool needs 50.000 pages to document its use, you are in trouble (in more ways than one).

Well imho the LaTeX-documentations could add up easily to this number, probably more: e.g. source3 has more then 700 pages, tikz more than 1000, etc. So imho Mojca's estimate is probably quite sound. But naturally such a reference is not the same as an introductionary book like the latex guide or the latex companion. Such books have to select and layout their informations -- and if it weren't possible to write such a book about context then you are in trouble.

I would immediately buy any book that explains ConTeXt such as the books that are there for LaTeX. But then, LaTeX is moribund and doesn’t change at all. An easier target.

As you wrote in a later posting: many books about latex are in parts outdated as they couldn't keep up with the development e.g. of tikz, biblatex, expl3 etc. So I don't see how you can claim that "latex doesn't change at all". Beside this I don't believe that context is changing so much that it would be impossible to write a book about it: I doubt that all the people who uses context in their daily work would like it if they had to adapt their document regularly to some new syntax. -- Ulrike Fischer http://www.troubleshooting-tex.de/