[NTG-context] Thoughts on ConTeXt: ditched
kopszak at gmail.com
Sun Jan 3 19:45:54 CET 2010
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.
2009/12/29 Manuel P. <ayeye.sysforge at gmail.com>:
> Il 29/12/2009 3.48, berend at 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.
> Manuel P.
> If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to
> the Wiki!
> maillist : ntg-context at ntg.nl /
> webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
> archive : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
> wiki : http://contextgarden.net
More information about the ntg-context