i.e. we already had CL CM and CR, so CT is new .. should be wikified.

The wiki [1] describes these \C* commands: \CR color is applied to the background of the text and the remaining space on the right; \CC color is applied to the background of the text only; \CM color is applied to the background of the text and the remaining space on both sides; \CL color is applied to the background of the text and the remaining space on the left. [1] http://wiki.contextgarden.net/Tabulate What does CT do differently than CC? It's not quite clear from the example. Cheers, Sietse

Hi Hans, All, I find this nomenclature confusing and a little confusing from a design standpoint! 1) Color of the text background should be separate from the rest of the cell background 2) the names should reflect to what they apply That said we should have: CTBGC == Cell text background color CTC == Cell text color CBGC == Cell background color or CC == Cell color CBGCR == Cell background color in the space right of text CBGCM == Cell background color in space middle of cell( above below text) CBGCL == Cell background color in the space right of text True, these are a lot of options/parameters, yet it offers the most flexibility and a cleaner interface. Furthermore, one can understand the names of the parameters. Another, advantage is that one could and at a later point a feature for inverting the color of the text according cell color and/or text background color. regards Keith. Am 19.03.2013 um 23:46 schrieb Sietse Brouwer :

...

i.e. we already had CL CM and CR, so CT is new .. should be wikified.

The wiki [1] describes these \C* commands:

\CR color is applied to the background of the text and the remaining space on the right; \CC color is applied to the background of the text only; \CM color is applied to the background of the text and the remaining space on both sides; \CL color is applied to the background of the text and the remaining space on the left.

[1] http://wiki.contextgarden.net/Tabulate

What does CT do differently than CC? It's not quite clear from the example.

Cheers,

On 3/20/2013 8:14 AM, Keith J. Schultz wrote:

Hi Hans, All,

I find this nomenclature confusing and a little confusing from a design standpoint!

1) Color of the text background should be separate from the rest of the cell background

2) the names should reflect to what they apply

That said we should have: CTBGC == Cell text background color CTC == Cell text color

CBGC == Cell background color or CC == Cell color

CBGCR == Cell background color in the space right of text CBGCM == Cell background color in space middle of cell( above below text) CBGCL == Cell background color in the space right of text

True, these are a lot of options/parameters, yet it offers the most flexibility and a cleaner interface. Furthermore, one can understand the names of the parameters.

preamble scanning is already quite tricky and there was already CR CM CL so adding CT was a few lines of extra code (i will probably make a key/val based variant some day but that is no fun either ... 10 lines of setup per table instead of a one line preeamble) (and i'm forbidden to fundamentally change an important mechanism like tabulate right now as for sure it will break some things)

Another, advantage is that one could and at a later point a feature for inverting the color of the text according cell color and/or text background color.

regards Keith.

Am 19.03.2013 um 23:46 schrieb Sietse Brouwer :

...

...

i.e. we already had CL CM and CR, so CT is new .. should be wikified.

The wiki [1] describes these \C* commands:

\CR color is applied to the background of the text and the remaining space on the right; \CC color is applied to the background of the text only; \CM color is applied to the background of the text and the remaining space on both sides; \CL color is applied to the background of the text and the remaining space on the left.

[1] http://wiki.contextgarden.net/Tabulate

What does CT do differently than CC? It's not quite clear from the example.

Cheers,

___________________________________________________________________________________ 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 Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 4:43 AM, Hans Hagen wrote:

On 3/20/2013 8:14 AM, Keith J. Schultz wrote:

...

Hi Hans, All,

I find this nomenclature confusing and a little confusing from a design standpoint!

1) Color of the text background should be separate from the rest of the cell background

2) the names should reflect to what they apply

That said we should have: CTBGC == Cell text background color CTC == Cell text color

CBGC == Cell background color or CC == Cell color

CBGCR == Cell background color in the space right of text CBGCM == Cell background color in space middle of cell( above below text) CBGCL == Cell background color in the space right of text

True, these are a lot of options/parameters, yet it offers the most flexibility and a cleaner interface. Furthermore, one can understand the names of the parameters.

preamble scanning is already quite tricky and there was already CR CM CL so adding CT was a few lines of extra code

(i will probably make a key/val based variant some day but that is no fun either ... 10 lines of setup per table instead of a one line preeamble)

(and i'm forbidden to fundamentally change an important mechanism like tabulate right now as for sure it will break some things)

Further, the declaration of a tabulate environment already tends to be pretty tight on space, so IMO a little bit of obscurity in these parameters - provided they stay documented - is an acceptable price to pay for keeping the keys to two letters (three would probably be OK too, esp. for less frequently used ones).

...

Another, advantage is that one could and at a later point a feature for inverting the color of the text according cell color and/or text background color.

regards Keith.

Am 19.03.2013 um 23:46 schrieb Sietse Brouwer :

...

...

i.e. we already had CL CM and CR, so CT is new .. should be wikified.

I've added this to the wiki. Just to be clear: CT provides an alternate method to colorize the text, instead of using the standard \color[foo]{bar} - right? There is already a section on using the \color command to colorize the text, so I want to make sure I'm adding this correctly as a complementary mechanism, or fix it if I misunderstood. - Jon

...

...

The wiki [1] describes these \C* commands:

\CR color is applied to the background of the text and the remaining space on the right; \CC color is applied to the background of the text only; \CM color is applied to the background of the text and the remaining space on both sides; \CL color is applied to the background of the text and the remaining space on the left.

[1] http://wiki.contextgarden.net/Tabulate

What does CT do differently than CC? It's not quite clear from the example.

Cheers,

___________________________________________________________________________________ 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 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ___________________________________________________________________________________ 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 Tue, 19 Mar 2013, Hans Hagen wrote:

\starttext

\starttabulate[||CL{darkred}|CM{darkgreen}CT{white}|CR{darkblue}||] \NC first \NC left \NC middle \NC right \NC last \NC \NR \NC first \NC \color[white]{left} \NC middle \NC \color[white]{right} \NC last \NC \NR \NC first \NC left \NC middle \NC right \NC last \NC \NR \stoptabulate

\stoptext

i.e. we already had CL CM and CR, so CT is new .. should be wikified.

I am using a two-week old beta (2015.04.03). CL has the same alignment as r and CR has the same aligned as l. I understand the historic reason for the difference between left and flushleft, but shouldn't the alignment keys within the same mechanism have the same meaning? (Or was this a bug that has been corrected in the current beta). Aditya