[NTG-context] Ideas for restructuring the ConTeXt garden?

Vnpenguin vnpenguin at vnoss.org
Sun Mar 13 08:01:48 CET 2011


On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 21:08, C. <metan0r at gmx.de> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I recently started using context. I migrated from latex to xelatex to
> context. Mainly because of the better font support. I now value context also
> for its superior abilities. I feel that I can do more stuff without the use
> of \usepackage for this, \usepackage for that. When I read the
> documentation, I get the feeling that a lot of thoughts went into the
> options that are presented but it's still easy to customize (if you know how
> to do it :D)
> Here is my input to your questions.
>
> 1) why users are confused with mkiv/mkii?
> The difference is not well explained. Also, mkii (which I don't use) sounds
> like "the old version". When I first read about context, it was like "well,
> we have this and that (mkii and mkiv)" but it should say "we have mkii,
> [insert here: what can it do, for what users is it recommended, pros/cons]
> and mkiv [insert info]. If you are not sure what to use, then you should use
> mkiv, because that is the future." Or something like that.

For me I don't care mkii. I use only mkiv. It's better to separate
completely mkii from mkiv distribution. Yes, I see, in this case there
is some work more for ConTeXt team.

> 2) why they my be reluctant to install the minimals?
> Because they already have it in miktex, texlive. What they don't know is
> that these versions are outdated and due to the heavy development pretty
> far behind. Plus, it should say "Context Standalone" because that is what it
> is.

Yes, agreed !

mkii should be named "ConTeXt Legacy" ?


More information about the ntg-context mailing list