[NTG-context] A question for you
nicolas.marsgui at libertysurf.fr
Sun May 28 03:26:07 CEST 2006
On Fri, 26 May 2006 20:01:57 -0600, Idris Samawi Hamid
<ishamid at colostate.edu> wrote:
> Which typesetting tasks do you NOT do in ConTeXt, and what do you prefer
> to use for those tasks?
I don't use context for any technical documentation that requires several
output formats (HTML, PDF, troff for manpages), and i use DocBook instead,
well suited for a wide range of transformation.
This said, I now uses context as backend typesetting engine to convert the
DocBook documents into PDF. I can then control the (high quality) output
rendering, what I cannot do with XSL FO based transformation, and I don't
need java neither (required to process FO, unless you use foxet, maybe).
> What typesetting tasks do you find difficult-to-onerous in ConTeXt (even
> in nothing else is available)?
Common documents exchanged with colleagues (who have falled into the dark
side of MS wor(l)d).
BTW, I think that the biggest limitation to have context more used is the
installation difficulties: too many dependencies to update by hand (tetex,
LM fonts, launching scripts, config files), no standard installation (what
about having one day something like a "configure; make install"), no
packaging à la RPM, apt-get, or portinstall. Of course, once done,
upgrading the context release is not a big deal, but the first step is not
obvious. It's the only explanation I've found why latex is so popular;
knowing a bit more the context interface and features I now look latex as
a stone age tex macro package.
More information about the ntg-context