David wrote:
> documentation makes all other bugs insignificant. (In fact, many
> apparent bugs turn out to have secret workarounds anyway, and those
> would obviously be in the documentation.)
this is not entirely true ... there is often more than one way to solve
a problem (esp if there is no robust solution possible in tex); if there
is no official interface (say method=...], it might be an indication
that the solution is suboptimal, even if the finetuning feature is to
stay forever
> - Documentation *could* be maintained and updated by someone outside of
> the small group, *IF* there was a reasonably up-to-date base of correct
> and complete documentation for them to start from. Currently, there is
> no such thing.
there's the matter of what a user expects ... the core of context is
rather stable and in that respect the 'old documentation' is still valid
i.e. apart from 'new features, which may of interest to only a small
group', the date on a manual does not tell much (i run quite some
software which rather ancient manuals); for instance ... how many users
are really interested in tricky xml support?
Hans
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 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 : https://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________
