Hi everyone, After fighting with ConTeXt one month, I find it's too difficult. I have two years experience of LaTeX. I never thought ConTeXt could be so difficult. Using ConTeXt is like climbing a steep mountain, every step need extensive searching, reading, and asking. Sorry for the useless complain. I'm stuck by so many problems. I might be lack of the basic knowledge of ConTeXt. Could someone tell me where I can find manuals or papers that describe the logic of ConTeXt design and basics of ConTeXt programming. Thanks in advance. Best wishes, Wei-Wei
Wei-Wei Guo wrote:
Hi everyone,
After fighting with ConTeXt one month, I find it's too difficult. I have two years experience of LaTeX. I never thought ConTeXt could be so difficult. Using ConTeXt is like climbing a steep mountain, every step need extensive searching, reading, and asking.
Sorry for the useless complain. I'm stuck by so many problems. I might be lack of the basic knowledge of ConTeXt. Could someone tell me where I can find manuals or papers that describe the logic of ConTeXt design and basics of ConTeXt programming.
Thanks in advance.
Best wishes, Wei-Wei Many have voiced the same complaint. I understand that Hans and every one are occupied with building MKIV (aka LuaTeX), and that documentation is not their highest priority. There's the wiki, the wonderfully active mailing list, and what used to be decent docs from 2001/2002 timeframe. But yes, it's a steep hill to climb, made worth it only by the relative awesomeness of ConTeXt.
If there is an existing strategy for creating documentation, I'd love to hear it. My feeling is it's it's time to pay someone to write some good docs. Someone who's not on the development team, who has experience writing technical documentation, and who can shepard list members into crowd sourcing some real documentation. MKIV is stabilizing into usefulness, and now is a good time to start. I suspect list members would donate to such a project, plus we could get some grant money (if that's not all dried up due to the global economy), and maybe some contribution from Pragma itself, and other orgs that depend on ConTeXt. A patchwork quilt of financing, and a project coordinator/writer who sees their work as a labor of love, and a side job, could make this happen. Even if we could only afford 10 hours of work a week, that could get a lot done. In terms of process, I think someone to comb the list archives for common problems and solutions, and wikify them would get the most bang for the buck initially. These wiki entries could later be ConTeXtified into printed (and screen) docs, like Hans' awesome old manuals. Honestly, we've got smart people wasting time answering the same questions in different ways on the list, when they could be plugging in some of that time into writing docs for everyone. And as useful as the list is, it's no substitute for manuals. If I understood ConTeXt I'd volunteer, but I'm a noob, so I'm feeling the same frustration as Wei-Wei. I feel bad having to bug developers and advanced users every time I have a basic question. It's inefficient and inelegant, though I much appreciate the access to great minds and the window into the development process this has given me. Pile on to this thread, if this is a burning issue for you, or you have some strategy or expertise to offer. Cheers, Corin
Corin Royal Drummond wrote:
Many have voiced the same complaint. I understand that Hans and every one are occupied with building MKIV (aka LuaTeX), and that documentation is not their highest priority. There's the wiki, the wonderfully active mailing list, and what used to be decent docs from 2001/2002 timeframe. But yes, it's a steep hill to climb, made worth it only by the relative awesomeness of ConTeXt.
You missed the reference manual rewrite effort (which is now in remission mostly because of an extremely depressing lack of user feedback). http://wiki.contextgarden.net/Main_Page#Documentation Best wishes, Taco
Taco Hoekwater wrote:
Corin Royal Drummond wrote:
Many have voiced the same complaint. I understand that Hans and every one are occupied with building MKIV (aka LuaTeX), and that documentation is not their highest priority. There's the wiki, the wonderfully active mailing list, and what used to be decent docs from 2001/2002 timeframe. But yes, it's a steep hill to climb, made worth it only by the relative awesomeness of ConTeXt.
You missed the reference manual rewrite effort (which is now in remission mostly because of an extremely depressing lack of user feedback).
Hi Taco, I'm sorry that I haven't given much feedback on the documentation project. I got through the Typography chapter, but then was so confounded by the Fonts chapter that I didn't feel able to give comments. I will make another attempt. Cheers, Rory
Best wishes, Taco
___________________________________________________________________________________ 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 : https://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___________________________________________________________________________________
On Mar 17, 2009, at 9:20 AM, Rory Molinari wrote:
Taco Hoekwater wrote:
Corin Royal Drummond wrote:
Many have voiced the same complaint. I understand that Hans and every one are occupied with building MKIV (aka LuaTeX), and that documentation is not their highest priority. There's the wiki, the wonderfully active mailing list, and what used to be decent docs from 2001/2002 timeframe. But yes, it's a steep hill to climb, made worth it only by the relative awesomeness of ConTeXt. You missed the reference manual rewrite effort (which is now in remission mostly because of an extremely depressing lack of user feedback). http://wiki.contextgarden.net/Main_Page#Documentation
Hi Taco,
I'm sorry that I haven't given much feedback on the documentation project. I got through the Typography chapter, but then was so confounded by the Fonts chapter that I didn't feel able to give comments. I will make another attempt.
Cheers, Rory
Hi, I'd like to second what Rory said. I was delighted by my first reading of the typography chapter, and had not seen the font chapter until you posted the link above, Taco. I'm also sorry not to have chimed in before. Dave
Can someone post a link to the actual reference manual rewrite Taco
was talking about? I don't see anything on
http://wiki.contextgarden.net/Main_Page#Documentation that looks like
a reference manual in progress.
Mike
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 6:00 PM, David Wooten
On Mar 17, 2009, at 9:20 AM, Rory Molinari wrote:
Taco Hoekwater wrote:
Corin Royal Drummond wrote:
Many have voiced the same complaint. I understand that Hans and every one are occupied with building MKIV (aka LuaTeX), and that documentation is not their highest priority. There's the wiki, the wonderfully active mailing list, and what used to be decent docs from 2001/2002 timeframe. But yes, it's a steep hill to climb, made worth it only by the relative awesomeness of ConTeXt.
You missed the reference manual rewrite effort (which is now in remission mostly because of an extremely depressing lack of user feedback). http://wiki.contextgarden.net/Main_Page#Documentation
Hi Taco,
I'm sorry that I haven't given much feedback on the documentation project. I got through the Typography chapter, but then was so confounded by the Fonts chapter that I didn't feel able to give comments. I will make another attempt.
Cheers, Rory
Hi, I'd like to second what Rory said. I was delighted by my first reading of the typography chapter, and had not seen the font chapter until you posted the link above, Taco. I'm also sorry not to have chimed in before.
Dave
___________________________________________________________________________________ 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 : https://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___________________________________________________________________________________
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009, Michael Bynum wrote:
Can someone post a link to the actual reference manual rewrite Taco was talking about? I don't see anything on http://wiki.contextgarden.net/Main_Page#Documentation that looks like a reference manual in progress.
The links are after the big note saying that we are working on the rewite of the manual. Feel free to change the formatting to make it more prominent. Aditya
Aditya Mahajan
Can someone post a link to the actual reference manual rewrite Taco was talking about? I don't see anything on http://wiki.contextgarden.net/Main_Page#Documentation that looks like a reference manual in progress.
The links are after the big note saying that we are working on the rewite of the manual. Feel free to change the formatting to make it more prominent.
Aditya, are you talking about the svn-repository link. That link seems to be broken. When I click on it, I get a message saying "address not found" Thanks
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009, Curious Learn wrote:
Aditya Mahajan
writes: Can someone post a link to the actual reference manual rewrite Taco was talking about? I don't see anything on http://wiki.contextgarden.net/Main_Page#Documentation that looks like a reference manual in progress.
The links are after the big note saying that we are working on the rewite of the manual. Feel free to change the formatting to make it more prominent.
Aditya, are you talking about the svn-repository link. That link seems to be broken. When I click on it, I get a message saying "address not found"
Maybe supplec is down at the moment. You can browse the files at http://context.aanhet.net/svn/contextman/context-reference/en/ but it only contains the pdf of the font and typography chapters (they are also linked from the main page). Aditya
Taco Hoekwater
Corin Royal Drummond wrote:
Many have voiced the same complaint. I understand that Hans and every one are occupied with building MKIV (aka LuaTeX), and that documentation is not their highest priority. There's the wiki, the wonderfully active mailing list, and what used to be decent docs from 2001/2002 timeframe. But yes, it's a steep hill to climb, made worth it only by the relative awesomeness of ConTeXt.
You missed the reference manual rewrite effort (which is now in remission mostly because of an extremely depressing lack of user feedback).
Could we add that manual to the minimals? Jesse -- Jesse Alama (alama@stanford.edu)
Wei-Wei Guo wrote:
Hi everyone,
After fighting with ConTeXt one month, I find it's too difficult. I have two years experience of LaTeX. I never thought ConTeXt could be so difficult. Using ConTeXt is like climbing a steep mountain, every step need extensive searching, reading, and asking.
Sorry for the useless complain. I'm stuck by so many problems. I might be lack of the basic knowledge of ConTeXt. Could someone tell me where I can find manuals or papers that describe the logic of ConTeXt design and basics of ConTeXt programming.
Thanks in advance.
Best wishes, Wei-Wei Yes, there is a hole in that way. I'm agree too. Many have voiced the same complaint. I understand that Hans and every one are occupied with building MKIV (aka LuaTeX), and that documentation is not their highest priority. There's the wiki, the wonderfully active mailing list, and what used to be decent docs from 2001/2002 timeframe. But yes, it's a steep hill to climb, made worth it only by the relative awesomeness of ConTeXt. If there is an existing strategy for creating documentation, I'd love to hear it. My feeling is it's it's time to pay someone to write some good docs. Someone who's not on the development team, who has experience writing technical documentation, and who can shepard list members into crowd sourcing some real documentation. The problem is who. Who has this high technical knowledge and he/she is not developer?. People I know that have this high tech knowledge of ConTeXt is developer. MKIV is stabilizing into usefulness, and now is a good time to start. I suspect list members would donate to such a project, plus we could get some grant money (if that's not all dried up due to the global economy), and maybe some contribution from Pragma itself, and other orgs that depend on ConTeXt. A patchwork quilt of financing, and a project coordinator/writer who sees their work as a labor of love, and a side job, could make this happen. Even if we could only afford 10 hours of work a week, that could get a lot done. In terms of process, I think someone to comb the list archives for common problems and solutions, and wikify them would get the most bang for the buck initially. These wiki entries could later be ConTeXtified into printed (and screen) docs, like Hans' awesome old manuals. Good idea. Just a suggestion. If someone starts new documentation, it should be free. Now the "only" documentation for users is "ConTeXt manual", "Context, an excursion" (and some PracTeX journal and MAPS journal
En/na Corin Royal Drummond ha escrit: articles). These documents are copyrated by Pragma. And for the other hand the license of documentation of ConTeXt is Creative Commons Atribution Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0. I think it's better if the new documentation were free: Creative Commons Attribution 3.0, Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 or GNU Free Documentation License. It could estimulate more users than now. It's my opinion.
Honestly, we've got smart people wasting time answering the same questions in different ways on the list, when they could be plugging in some of that time into writing docs for everyone. And as useful as the list is, it's no substitute for manuals. Really how many people are using ConTeXt and how many developers are here? For example, how many people are subscribing in this list: it could tells us what's the number of users. If I understood ConTeXt I'd volunteer, but I'm a noob, so I'm feeling the same frustration as Wei-Wei. I feel bad having to bug developers and advanced users every time I have a basic question. It's inefficient and inelegant, though I much appreciate the access to great minds and the window into the development process this has given me. Pile on to this thread, if this is a burning issue for you, or you have some strategy or expertise to offer. Cheers,
Corin Regards, Xan (a simple user)
Xan wrote:
Wei-Wei Guo wrote:
Hi everyone,
After fighting with ConTeXt one month, I find it's too difficult. I have two years experience of LaTeX. I never thought ConTeXt could be so difficult. Using ConTeXt is like climbing a steep mountain, every step need extensive searching, reading, and asking.
Sorry for the useless complain. I'm stuck by so many problems. I might be lack of the basic knowledge of ConTeXt. Could someone tell me where I can find manuals or papers that describe the logic of ConTeXt design and basics of ConTeXt programming.
Thanks in advance.
Best wishes, Wei-Wei Yes, there is a hole in that way. I'm agree too. Many have voiced the same complaint. I understand that Hans and every one are occupied with building MKIV (aka LuaTeX), and that documentation is not their highest priority. There's the wiki, the wonderfully active mailing list, and what used to be decent docs from 2001/2002 timeframe. But yes, it's a steep hill to climb, made worth it only by the relative awesomeness of ConTeXt. If there is an existing strategy for creating documentation, I'd love to hear it. My feeling is it's it's time to pay someone to write some good docs. Someone who's not on the development team, who has experience writing technical documentation, and who can shepard list members into crowd sourcing some real documentation. The problem is who. Who has this high technical knowledge and he/she is not developer?. People I know that have this high tech knowledge of ConTeXt is developer. MKIV is stabilizing into usefulness, and now is a good time to start. I suspect list members would donate to such a project, plus we could get some grant money (if that's not all dried up due to the global economy), and maybe some contribution from Pragma itself, and other orgs that depend on ConTeXt. A patchwork quilt of financing, and a project coordinator/writer who sees their work as a labor of love, and a side job, could make this happen. Even if we could only afford 10 hours of work a week, that could get a lot done. In terms of process, I think someone to comb the list archives for common problems and solutions, and wikify them would get the most bang for the buck initially. These wiki entries could later be ConTeXtified into printed (and screen) docs, like Hans' awesome old manuals. Good idea. Just a suggestion. If someone starts new documentation, it should be free. Now the "only" documentation for users is "ConTeXt manual", "Context, an excursion" (and some PracTeX journal and MAPS journal
En/na Corin Royal Drummond ha escrit: articles). These documents are copyrated by Pragma. And for the other hand the license of documentation of ConTeXt is Creative Commons Atribution Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0.
I think it's better if the new documentation were free: Creative Commons Attribution 3.0, Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 or GNU Free Documentation License. It could estimulate more users than now. It's my opinion.
You missed the reference manual rewrite effort (which is now in remission mostly because of an extremely depressing lack of user feedback). http://wiki.contextgarden.net/Main_Page#Documentation That is GNU FDL.
Really how many people are using ConTeXt and how many developers are here? For example, how many people are subscribing in this list: it could tells us what's the number of users.
About 500, IIRC. Taco
En/na Taco Hoekwater ha escrit:
Xan wrote:
Good idea. Just a suggestion. If someone starts new documentation, it should be free. Now the "only" documentation for users is "ConTeXt manual", "Context, an excursion" (and some PracTeX journal and MAPS journal articles). These documents are copyrated by Pragma. And for the other hand the license of documentation of ConTeXt is Creative Commons Atribution Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0.
I think it's better if the new documentation were free: Creative Commons Attribution 3.0, Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 or GNU Free Documentation License. It could estimulate more users than now. It's my opinion.
You missed the reference manual rewrite effort (which is now in remission mostly because of an extremely depressing lack of user feedback).
http://wiki.contextgarden.net/Main_Page#Documentation
That is GNU FDL.
You refer to this link [http://foundry.supelec.fr/plugins/scmsvn/viewcvs.php/context-reference/en/?root=contextman]?? Where is the license explicited? There is no README/LICENSE or analogous file and no head license in every .tex file. Ooops, not: in [http://foundry.supelec.fr/plugins/scmsvn/viewcvs.php/context-reference/en/contextref.tex?root=contextman&view=markup] I see the license. Sorry But should it put in every .tex file or in a LICENSE file? I'm not lawyer. Just a question.
Really how many people are using ConTeXt and how many developers are here? For example, how many people are subscribing in this list: it could tells us what's the number of users.
About 500, IIRC.
Thanks Taco. Xan.
Taco ___________________________________________________________________________________ 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 : https://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___________________________________________________________________________________
Xan wrote:
But should it put in every .tex file or in a LICENSE file? I'm not lawyer. Just a question.
There is a COPYING in the one 'up' directory. It would be good to add a license pointer to every source file, that is true. Best wishes, Taco
Yes, there are may fruitful pages in ConTeXt wiki. But all wiki resources have the same problem: If you know what you are looking for, it's helpful. If not, it would be a time hole. And I was told that MkIV progresses so fast that many things in the current manuals are out of date. I don't know which manual I should stick with. To make thing worse, there are so many places containing ConTeXt tutorials and manuals(see the following list). - wiki.contextgarden.net - http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextman/ - http://context.aanhet.net/svn/contextman/ - http://www.pragma-ade.com/dir?path= Those materials are scattered, overlapped and not complete. It makes new users, like me, don't know what to read. If all those materials are put in only one place and companying with two and only two complete manuals, one for developer and one for user, it would be time saving for both users and developers. Then the next time when I meet command like '\??pb', I could look for it in manuals first, then wiki probably, then mail list. If I don't find answer in those three places, I would know the command is not documented then I could ask in the mail list without hesitating and worrying about wasting other people's time. To Taco: My emails don't mean any offense to you. You give me lots of help. I really appreciate it. To Alan: Thanks, your proverbs are very inspiriting. To Xan and Corin: Thanks for your understanding. Best wishes, Wei-Wei Corin Royal Drummond 写道:
In terms of process, I think someone to comb the list archives for common problems and solutions, and wikify them would get the most bang for the buck initially. These wiki entries could later be ConTeXtified into printed (and screen) docs, like Hans' awesome old manuals. Honestly, we've got smart people wasting time answering the same questions in different ways on the list, when they could be plugging in some of that time into writing docs for everyone. And as useful as the list is, it's no substitute for manuals.
There is also, but is still a work-in-progress http://groups.foundry.supelec.fr/modules/ -- luigi
Wei-Wei Guo wrote:
Hi everyone,
After fighting with ConTeXt one month, I find it's too difficult. I have two years experience of LaTeX. I never thought ConTeXt could be so difficult. Using ConTeXt is like climbing a steep mountain, every step need extensive searching, reading, and asking.
This is not intended to put you down, but i could have answered all your bib module questions with 'no', and that would have been a lot easier to understand. Best wishes, Taco
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 2:55 AM, Wei-Wei Guo
Hi everyone,
Hi Wei-Wei, Please enjoy what's underneath and give yourself a second chance to reconsider your point of view...
After fighting with ConTeXt one month,
Those who live are those who fight. - Victor Hugo
I find it's too difficult.
The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn. - Alvin Toffler Anyone who stops learning is old, whether at twenty or eighty. - Henry Ford Learning is a treasure that will follow its owner everywhere. - Chinese Proverb
I have two years experience of LaTeX.
How about acquiring a two year experience, and more, in ConTeXt ? ;O)
I never thought ConTeXt could be so difficult.
There are two ways of meeting difficulties: You alter the difficulties or you alter yourself to meet them. - Phyllis Bottome
Using ConTeXt is like climbing a steep mountain, every step need extensive searching, reading, and asking.
I've learned that everyone wants to live on top of the mountain, but all the happiness and growth occurs while you're climbing it. - Unknown When you reach the top, keep climbing. - Unknown
Sorry for the useless complain.
From my own experience, amongst others, in this mailing list...
Be your guest. :O)
I'm stuck by so many problems.
I might be lack of the basic knowledge of ConTeXt. Could someone tell me where I can find manuals or papers that describe the logic of ConTeXt design and basics of ConTeXt
I never believed I wouldn't make it - and perhaps that's why I've always found work. I've always stuck at everything I've ever done. I absolutely won't give up. - Amanda Holden programming. http://wiki.contextgarden.net/Main_Page Getting Started and Documentation sections.
Thanks in advance.
Best wishes, Wei-Wei
Two others for the road... If you're not failing every now and again, it's a sign you're not doing anything very innovative. - Woody Allen Keep on beginning and failing. Each time you fail, start all over again, and you will grow stronger until you have accomplished a purpose - not the one you began with perhaps, but one you'll be glad to remember. - Ann Sullivan Hope this helps, Alan
participants (12)
-
Aditya Mahajan -
Alan Stone -
Corin Royal Drummond -
Curious Learn -
David Wooten -
Jesse Alama -
luigi scarso -
Michael Bynum -
Rory Molinari -
Taco Hoekwater -
Wei-Wei Guo -
Xan