Hi John, Enclosed you will find a zip containing test-context.txt (a markdown test file) test-context.tex (output produced by Pandoc) test-context2.txt (a modified file showing more ideal ConTeXt output). In conjuction with odt2txt (which converts to markdown) Pandoc will be extremely useful in converting simple OOo-supported files to ConTeXt for advanced typography and typesetting. In the following comments I identify a few places where Pandoc could do things in a more ConTeXt-ish way. Note also that ConTeXt and LaTeX have very different philosophies: Although one can make ConTeXt imitate LaTeX, that's not generally the most useful way to approach it. Here we run Pandoc without the -s switch, so there is no preamble. In a separate report I will make suggestions on how we can improve the preamble to make it more ConTeXt-ish. I am also cc'ing this to the ConTeXt list in case anyone has any suggestions on improving my comments or other thoughts. I. Headings There are two issues in the way pandoc translates headings into ConTeXt: A. The heading-orders in markdown are not quite in sync with the context headings. In pandoc # => \section ## => \subsection etc. This should be changed to # => \title ## => \subject ### => \subsubject #### => \subsubsubject See also I.B following. B. Don't use \chapter, \section, \subsection, \subsubsection; Use instead \title, \subject, \subsubject, \subsubsubject To explain: Markdown does not support explicit ordered headings: Chapter 1: A Topic Section 1: A Subtopic Section 2: Another Subtopic Chapter 2: Another Topic Section 1: A Subtopic Rather it supports simple headings: A Topic A Subtopic Another Subtopic Another Topic A Subtopic In ConTeXt we use \title, \subject, etc. for unordered headings. II. Quotes A. Inline quotes For eg. “quotation using U201C and U201D” maybe you could translate that to \quotation{...} as well, though I guess “” are not part of markdown syntax so... B. Block Quotes There are three issues: i) When run in fragment mode (no -s switch), all of your defined control sequences, like \start-stopblockquote and \start-\stopltxitem, still need to be placed in the preamble. Note that \start-\stoptext can be nested. So you can place the entire fragment, including your definitions, within in a \start-\stoptext. A -preamble switch would be useful to turn the preamble on and off. ii) There is a \start-stopquotation command in ConTeXt already, but it has the odd feature that it adds doublequotes to the quote block (I'll ask Hans if he can add a setup option to remove them). Your definition is ok; I prefer (and in my own work typically use) something like \definestartstop [blockquote] [before={\startnarrower[2*left,2*right]\blank[big]\noindenting}, after={\stopnarrower\blank[big]}] iii. There is a spurious blank line before \stopblockquote. Indeed, there are spurious spaces before the end of many of your \start-stop constructions, as well as missing blank spaces after those constructions. III. Lists The ConTeXt philosophy of lists calls for a different approach: No need for new, nonstandard constructions (like \startltxitem), no need for \sym; \start-stopitemize is very rich in options. Also, using \start-stopitemize with options [...] is much better because what we want to be able to do is easily edit and configure the results of the pandoc transformation. So if I want to chage bullets to dashes I change \startitemize[1] to \startitemize[2]. For symbols, use the information in Section 10.6, Table 10.1, page 229 of cont-eni.pdf (the ConTeXt manual, available from http://www.pragma-ade.com/) Also note: There should be a blank line after \stopitemize; it will not necessarily create a spurious line in the output. In the preamble the user can define its properties in \setupitemize. By default the following two itemizations will create the same output: ============ Here is some text \startitemize \item Hi! \stopitemize Here is some text Here is some text \startitemize \item Hi! \stopitemize Here is some text ============ It is better to leave the blank space before and after the itemized group. Some specific examples (see my modifictions to pandoc output in test-context-r.tex): A. An unordered list: \startitemize \item One \item Two \item Three \stopitemize B. An ordered list with no paragraphs and no nesting: \startitemize[n] \item One \item Two \item Three \stopitemize C. An ordered list with paragraphs: NOTE THE USE OF \head HERE! \startitemize \head One Here is a paragraph. \head Two And another. \head Three And yet another. \stopitemize Here is a post paragraph sentence (with a blank space after \stopitemize). D. An ordered list with nesting and paragraphs: The output seems buggy; I don't get level-2 paragraphs. Maybe my markdown syntax is wrong? =================================== There's more in test-context-r.tex. Note that nested ordered list are defined for the document in the preamble, for example: \setupitemize[1][symbol=n] [indentnext=no] \setupitemize[2][symbol=A][indentnext=no] \setupitemize[3][symbol=R][indentnext=no,after={\blank[small]}] Level 1 will use Arabic numerals, level 2 will use capital letters, level 3 will use roman numerals. Normally a ConTeXt user wants to be keep the structure as general as possible so as to be able to typographically set the full document consistently. So there is no need to exacly mimic the settings of lists, etc; it's much more important to capture the structure as abstractly as possible. IV. Emphasize and Bold If we want to be really precise and do things the ConTeXt way, then we should define a new control sequence like \STRONG and then \let\STRONG=\bf This will complement \em Mixing the structural tag for emphasis with the formal tag \bf, as in {\bf {\em bold italic}} is strange in the TeX way of thinking. Better to have either {\bf {\it bold italic}} or {\STRONG {\em bold italic}} Bold italic is simply {\bi bold italic} btw. A THOUGHT: Maybe the markdown community may want to consider using multiples of `*' for emphasis and using multiples of `_' for italic and bold. From a TeX/typographic point of view this is a huge distinction. But markdown has its own purpose so maybe the distinction is not so important there... V. Footnotes Pandoc output: ==================== This sentence contains a footnote\footnote{Footnote contents }. This sentence contains no footnote. ==================== That blank space is really awful :-) Ideal output: ==================== This sentence contains a footnote \footnote{Footnote contents}. This sentence contains no footnote. ==================== There is no spurious space after the first line; \footnote gobbles it. I hope this is useful and clear. Let me know what you think! Best wishes Idris -- Professor Idris Samawi Hamid, Editor-in-Chief International Journal of Shi`i Studies Department of Philosophy Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523 -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/