Re: [NTG-context] TOC in presentations
On 03/09/2017 06:57 AM, Jose Luis Arellano wrote: Dear list, After learning ConTeXt for a while, I have decided to try to make my own slides, but I will like to use a list of contents in every page. Can anybody post an example or link to start? Have a look at the code in s-present-original.mkiv, that's where Topic macros are defined to have a list on every slide (if that's what you mean by "list of contents"). Thomas ___ 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://context.aanhet.net archive : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___
[NTG-context] TOC in presentations
Dear list, After learning ConTeXt for a while, I have decided to try to make my own slides, but I will like to use a list of contents in every page. Can anybody post an example or link to start? Thanks in advance ___ 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://context.aanhet.net archive : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___
[NTG-context] display current section number in \writestatus
ConTeXters, What is the best way to get the current section number in a basic format (pt.ch.s.ss... as displayed in the log in structure sectioning entries) for display in a custom log entry (via \writestatus)? I have tried \fullheadnumber and such, but cannot find something appropriate. -- Rik ___ 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://context.aanhet.net archive : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___
Re: [NTG-context] (off-topic) concatenating signed PDF documents
On 03/08/2017 07:35 PM, Henri Menke wrote: > »If you have PDF documents digitally signed the only way to combine > them preserving their signatures is to create a PDF Portfolio with > Acrobat Pro.« Many thanks for your reply, Henri. I saw that a way is attaching the PDF files to another PDF document. My understanding of PDF Portfoliios is that they are only a fancy way of presenting the attached files in the PDF. I’m afraid that adding attachments to a PDF file would make life too hard for the recipients of the file. Many thanks for your help, Pablo -- http://www.ousia.tk ___ 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://context.aanhet.net archive : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___
Re: [NTG-context] (off-topic) concatenating signed PDF documents
»If you have PDF documents digitally signed the only way to combine them preserving their signatures is to create a PDF Portfolio with Acrobat Pro.« Source: https://answers.acrobatusers.com/How-do-I-combine-multiple-files-to-one-PDF-when-one-or-more-files-has-been-digitally-signed-through-Docusign-q127556.aspx On 03/08/2017 06:37 PM, Pablo Rodriguez wrote: > Dear list, > > I have a question for users with more knowledge on digitally-signed PDF > documents. > > Is it possible to concatenate PDF documents (each signed by a different > certificate [by a different person]) into a single PDF document without > invalidating any signature? > > I tried to join all PDF files with pdftk, but digital signatures in the > resulting file were invalid. > > I guess that I’m trying something impossible, but I’ll really appreciate > the confirmation from somebody with experience in digital-signed PDF > documents. > > Many thanks for your help, > > Pablo > ___ 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://context.aanhet.net archive : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___
[NTG-context] (off-topic) concatenating signed PDF documents
Dear list, I have a question for users with more knowledge on digitally-signed PDF documents. Is it possible to concatenate PDF documents (each signed by a different certificate [by a different person]) into a single PDF document without invalidating any signature? I tried to join all PDF files with pdftk, but digital signatures in the resulting file were invalid. I guess that I’m trying something impossible, but I’ll really appreciate the confirmation from somebody with experience in digital-signed PDF documents. Many thanks for your help, Pablo -- http://www.ousia.tk ___ 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://context.aanhet.net archive : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___
Re: [NTG-context] Feature Request: xtables extensions
On Wed, 8 Mar 2017, Alan Braslau wrote: On Wed, 8 Mar 2017 16:29:52 +0100 Henri Menke wrote: Natural Tables are quite handy but their syntax is a little verbose. \bTABLE \bTR \bTD ... \eTD \eTR \eTABLE There exist nice extensions which make the format less verbose by mapping \startTABLE \NC ... \NR\NR \stopTABLE back to the original macros. The new method for tables, called xtables, is faster and seems to have less problems than Natural Tables. However, the syntax is even more verbose \startxtable \startxrow \startxcell ... \stopxcell \stopxrow \stopxtable Can we have similar abbreviations as for Natural Tables? Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, but I have always found the syntax of the older table macros to be quite unreadable, somewhat a left-over from laTeX-like syntax. The xtables syntax is verbose, indeed, but much more readable and much better in line with other ConTeXt syntax. It depends. For numerical tables, the old syntax is easier to read. \startTABLE \NC Parameter \NC value 1 \NC value 2 \NC value 3 \NC \NR \NC 1.0 \NC 3.4 \NC 3.6 \NC 4.2 \NC \NR \NC 1.0 \NC 3.4 \NC 3.6 \NC 4.2 \NC \NR \NC 1.0 \NC 3.4 \NC 3.6 \NC 4.2 \NC \NR \stopTABLE For textual tables, or for generating tables programmatically using CLD, the start-stop syntax is more convenient. Aditya ___ 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://context.aanhet.net archive : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___
Re: [NTG-context] Bug in Natural Tables
On 03/08/2017 03:47 PM, Henri Menke wrote:
No, this is Natural Tables. The macros I am using are defined in tabl-nte.mkiv
and the header there states
You're right, I was too fast with my response.
Nevertheless, as you requested, here the same bug with the traditional Natural
Table macros:
I didn't request anything, but there seems to be a real bug. Here's my code:
\setuppapersize [A4,landscape]
\starttext
\setupTABLE [row] [each] [align={lohi,middle}]
\setupTABLE [column] [1] [width=5cm]
\setupTABLE [column] [2] [width=2cm]
\setupTABLE [column] [3] [width=2cm]
\setupTABLE [column] [4] [width=2cm]
\setupTABLE [column] [5] [width=2cm]
\setupTABLE [column] [6] [width=2cm]
\setupTABLE [column] [7] [width=2cm]
\bTABLE
\bTR \bTD 1 \eTD \bTD 2 \eTD \bTD 3 \eTD \bTD 4 \eTD \bTD 5 \eTD \bTD 6
\eTD \bTD 7 \eTD \eTR
\bTR \bTD OSI-Schicht \eTD \bTD[nc=6] Umsetzung \eTD \eTR
\bTR \bTD Anwendungsschicht\eTD \bTD[nc=2,nr=3] SOME/I\eTD
\bTD[nc=2,nr=3] AVB/TSN\eTD \bTD[nc=2,nr=3] DoIP \eTD \eTR
\bTR \bTD Darstellungsschicht \eTD \eTR
\bTR \bTD Sitzungsschicht \eTD \eTR
\bTR \bTD Transportschicht \eTD \bTD[nc=3] TCP\eTD \bTD[nc=3] UDP
\eTD \eTR
\bTR \bTD Vermittlungsschicht \eTD \bTD[nc=3] IPv4\eTD \bTD[nc=3] IPv6
\eTD \eTR
\bTR \bTD Sicherungsschicht\eTD \bTD[nc=6] Ethernet \eTD \eTR
\bTR \bTD Bitübertragungsschicht \eTD \bTD[nc=2] 100BASE-TX\eTD
\bTD[nc=2] 100BASE-T\eTD \bTD[nc=2] 1000BASE-T \eTD \eTR
\eTABLE
\stoptext
If I comment out the first table row, the table is out of whack. Same if
I do not define the width of columns explicitly. So something is not
quite right here.
Thomas
___
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://context.aanhet.net
archive : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki : http://contextgarden.net
___
Re: [NTG-context] Feature Request: xtables extensions
On Wed, 8 Mar 2017 16:29:52 +0100
Henri Menke wrote:
> Natural Tables are quite handy but their syntax is a little verbose.
>
> \bTABLE
> \bTR
> \bTD ... \eTD
> \eTR
> \eTABLE
>
> There exist nice extensions which make the format less verbose by
> mapping
>
> \startTABLE
> \NC ... \NR\NR
> \stopTABLE
>
> back to the original macros.
>
> The new method for tables, called xtables, is faster and seems to
> have less problems than Natural Tables. However, the syntax is even
> more verbose
>
> \startxtable
> \startxrow
> \startxcell ... \stopxcell
> \stopxrow
> \stopxtable
>
> Can we have similar abbreviations as for Natural Tables?
Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, but I have always found the
syntax of the older table macros to be quite unreadable, somewhat a
left-over from laTeX-like syntax.
The xtables syntax is verbose, indeed, but much more readable and much
better in line with other ConTeXt syntax.
(Hans, my only complaint about xtables is that they apparently cannot be
used nested in a title={} of \startplacefigure.)
Alan
___
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://context.aanhet.net
archive : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki : http://contextgarden.net
___
Re: [NTG-context] Feature Request: xtables extensions
I refined the proposal a little further to not having to overload xtables but
only use one remaining internal macro of xtables. I also sent this version to
Hans to be considered going to the ConTeXt core.
\unprotect
%D xtable extensions
\definextable[XTABLE]
\unexpanded\def\startXTABLE
{\bgroup
\let\NC\tabl_xte_start_nc
\let\NR\tabl_xte_start_nr
\settrue\c_tabl_xte_first_nc
\tabl_x_start_named{XTABLE}}
\newconditional\c_tabl_xte_first_nc
\unexpanded\def\tabl_xte_start_nr
{\stopxcell\stopxrow
\settrue\c_tabl_xte_first_nc}
\unexpanded\def\tabl_xte_start_nc
{\ifconditional\c_tabl_xte_first_nc
\setfalse\c_tabl_xte_first_nc
\expandafter\startxrow\expandafter\startxcell
\else
\expandafter\stopxcell\expandafter\startxcell
\fi}
%D The related structure commands are also available:
\let\startXTABLEhead\startxtablehead
\let\startXTABLEfoot\startxtablefoot
\let\startXTABLEnext\startxtablenext
\let\startXTABLEbody\startxtablebody
\let\stopXTABLEhead\stopxtablehead
\let\stopXTABLEfoot\stopxtablefoot
\let\stopXTABLEnext\stopxtablenext
\let\stopXTABLEbody\stopxtablebody
\protect
\starttext
\startXTABLE[align={lohi,middle}]
\startXTABLEhead
\NC OSI-Schicht\NC[nx=6] Umsetzung \NR
\stopXTABLEhead
\startXTABLEbody
\NC Anwendungsschicht \NC[nx=2,ny=3] SOME/I \NC[nx=2,ny=3] AVB/TSN
\NC[nx=2,ny=3] DoIP \NR
\NC Darstellungsschicht\NR
\NC Sitzungsschicht\NR
\NC Transportschicht \NC[nx=3] TCP \NC[nx=3] UDP \NR
\NC Vermittlungsschicht\NC[nx=3] IPv4 \NC[nx=3] IPv6 \NR
\NC Sicherungsschicht \NC[nx=6] Ethernet \NR
\stopXTABLEbody
\startXTABLEfoot
\NC Bitübertragungsschicht \NC[nx=2] 100BASE-TX \NC[nx=2] 100BASE-T
\NC[nx=2] 1000BASE-T \NR
\stopXTABLEfoot
\stopXTABLE
\stoptext
On 03/08/2017 04:49 PM, Henri Menke wrote:
> Alternatively to my first proposal but still overloading the original xtables
> I came up with another solution which does not have the \NC\NR but only \NR
> and does not read the cell content as an argument.
>
> \unprotect
>
> % Overload tabl_x_start_table
> \unexpanded\def\tabl_x_start_table[#settings]% maybe two arguments:
> [tag][settings] | [tag] | [settings]
> {\bgroup
>\let\NC\tabl_xte_start_nc
>\let\NR\tabl_xte_start_nr
>\settrue\c_tabl_xte_first_nc
>\tabl_x_prepare{#settings}%
>\edef\tabl_x_current_buffer{\tabl_x_default_buffer}%
>
> \buff_pickup{\tabl_x_current_buffer}{startxtable}{stopxtable}\relax\tabl_x_process\zerocount}
>
> % xtable extensions
> \newconditional\c_tabl_xte_first_nc
>
> \unexpanded\def\tabl_xte_start_nr
> {\stopxcell\stopxrow
>\settrue\c_tabl_xte_first_nc}
>
> \unexpanded\def\tabl_xte_start_nc
> {\ifconditional\c_tabl_xte_first_nc
> \setfalse\c_tabl_xte_first_nc
> \expandafter\startxrow\expandafter\startxcell
>\else
> \expandafter\stopxcell\expandafter\startxcell
>\fi}
>
> \protect
>
> \starttext
>
> \startxtable[align={lohi,middle}]
> \NC OSI-Schicht\NC[nx=6] Umsetzung \NR
> \NC Anwendungsschicht \NC[nx=2,ny=3] SOME/I \NC[nx=2,ny=3] AVB/TSN
> \NC[nx=2,ny=3] DoIP \NR
> \NC Darstellungsschicht\NR
> \NC Sitzungsschicht\NR
> \NC Transportschicht \NC[nx=3] TCP \NC[nx=3] UDP \NR
> \NC Vermittlungsschicht\NC[nx=3] IPv4 \NC[nx=3] IPv6 \NR
> \NC Sicherungsschicht \NC[nx=6] Ethernet \NR
> \NC Bitübertragungsschicht \NC[nx=2] 100BASE-TX \NC[nx=2] 100BASE-T
> \NC[nx=2] 1000BASE-T \NR
> \stopxtable
>
> \stoptext
>
> On 03/08/2017 04:39 PM, Henri Menke wrote:
>> I quickly came up with something myself. Unfortunately, it involves
>> overloading of the original xtables. Perhaps there is a better way but it
>> works. I am happy to hear your opinions!
>>
>> \unprotect
>>
>> % Overload tabl_x_start_table
>> \unexpanded\def\tabl_x_start_table[#settings]% maybe two arguments:
>> [tag][settings] | [tag] | [settings]
>> {\bgroup
>>\let\NC\tabl_xte_start_nc
>>\let\NR\tabl_xte_start_nr
>>\tabl_x_prepare{#settings}%
>>\edef\tabl_x_current_buffer{\tabl_x_default_buffer}%
>>
>> \buff_pickup{\tabl_x_current_buffer}{startxtable}{stopxtable}\relax\tabl_x_process\zerocount}
>>
>> % xtable extensions
>> \newconditional\c_tabl_xte_in_nc
>>
>> \unexpanded\def\tabl_xte_start_nr
>> {\stopxrow
>>\setfalse\c_tabl_xte_in_nc}
>>
>> \unexpanded\def\tabl_xte_start_nc
>> {\futurelet\next\tabl_xte_start_nc_indeed}
>>
>> \def\tabl_xte_start_nc_indeed
>> {\ifx\next\tabl_xte_start_nr \else
>> \expandafter\tabl_xte_start_nc_finish
>>\fi}
>>
>> \def\tabl_xte_start_nc_finish#1\NC
>> {\ifconditional\c_tabl_xte_in_nc \else
>> \settrue\c_tabl_xte_in_nc
>> \startxrow[]%
>>\fi
>>\startxcell#1\stopxcell\NC}
>>
>> \protect
>>
>> \starttext
>>
>> \startxtable[align={lohi,middle}]
>> \NC OSI-Schicht\NC[nx=6] Umsetzung \NC\NR
>> \NC Anwendungsschicht \NC[nx=2,ny=3] SOME/I \NC[nx=2
Re: [NTG-context] Feature Request: xtables extensions
Alternatively to my first proposal but still overloading the original xtables I
came up with another solution which does not have the \NC\NR but only \NR and
does not read the cell content as an argument.
\unprotect
% Overload tabl_x_start_table
\unexpanded\def\tabl_x_start_table[#settings]% maybe two arguments:
[tag][settings] | [tag] | [settings]
{\bgroup
\let\NC\tabl_xte_start_nc
\let\NR\tabl_xte_start_nr
\settrue\c_tabl_xte_first_nc
\tabl_x_prepare{#settings}%
\edef\tabl_x_current_buffer{\tabl_x_default_buffer}%
\buff_pickup{\tabl_x_current_buffer}{startxtable}{stopxtable}\relax\tabl_x_process\zerocount}
% xtable extensions
\newconditional\c_tabl_xte_first_nc
\unexpanded\def\tabl_xte_start_nr
{\stopxcell\stopxrow
\settrue\c_tabl_xte_first_nc}
\unexpanded\def\tabl_xte_start_nc
{\ifconditional\c_tabl_xte_first_nc
\setfalse\c_tabl_xte_first_nc
\expandafter\startxrow\expandafter\startxcell
\else
\expandafter\stopxcell\expandafter\startxcell
\fi}
\protect
\starttext
\startxtable[align={lohi,middle}]
\NC OSI-Schicht\NC[nx=6] Umsetzung \NR
\NC Anwendungsschicht \NC[nx=2,ny=3] SOME/I \NC[nx=2,ny=3] AVB/TSN
\NC[nx=2,ny=3] DoIP \NR
\NC Darstellungsschicht\NR
\NC Sitzungsschicht\NR
\NC Transportschicht \NC[nx=3] TCP \NC[nx=3] UDP \NR
\NC Vermittlungsschicht\NC[nx=3] IPv4 \NC[nx=3] IPv6 \NR
\NC Sicherungsschicht \NC[nx=6] Ethernet \NR
\NC Bitübertragungsschicht \NC[nx=2] 100BASE-TX \NC[nx=2] 100BASE-T \NC[nx=2]
1000BASE-T \NR
\stopxtable
\stoptext
On 03/08/2017 04:39 PM, Henri Menke wrote:
> I quickly came up with something myself. Unfortunately, it involves
> overloading of the original xtables. Perhaps there is a better way but it
> works. I am happy to hear your opinions!
>
> \unprotect
>
> % Overload tabl_x_start_table
> \unexpanded\def\tabl_x_start_table[#settings]% maybe two arguments:
> [tag][settings] | [tag] | [settings]
> {\bgroup
>\let\NC\tabl_xte_start_nc
>\let\NR\tabl_xte_start_nr
>\tabl_x_prepare{#settings}%
>\edef\tabl_x_current_buffer{\tabl_x_default_buffer}%
>
> \buff_pickup{\tabl_x_current_buffer}{startxtable}{stopxtable}\relax\tabl_x_process\zerocount}
>
> % xtable extensions
> \newconditional\c_tabl_xte_in_nc
>
> \unexpanded\def\tabl_xte_start_nr
> {\stopxrow
>\setfalse\c_tabl_xte_in_nc}
>
> \unexpanded\def\tabl_xte_start_nc
> {\futurelet\next\tabl_xte_start_nc_indeed}
>
> \def\tabl_xte_start_nc_indeed
> {\ifx\next\tabl_xte_start_nr \else
> \expandafter\tabl_xte_start_nc_finish
>\fi}
>
> \def\tabl_xte_start_nc_finish#1\NC
> {\ifconditional\c_tabl_xte_in_nc \else
> \settrue\c_tabl_xte_in_nc
> \startxrow[]%
>\fi
>\startxcell#1\stopxcell\NC}
>
> \protect
>
> \starttext
>
> \startxtable[align={lohi,middle}]
> \NC OSI-Schicht\NC[nx=6] Umsetzung \NC\NR
> \NC Anwendungsschicht \NC[nx=2,ny=3] SOME/I \NC[nx=2,ny=3] AVB/TSN
> \NC[nx=2,ny=3] DoIP \NC\NR
> \NC Darstellungsschicht\NC\NR
> \NC Sitzungsschicht\NC\NR
> \NC Transportschicht \NC[nx=3] TCP \NC[nx=3] UDP \NC\NR
> \NC Vermittlungsschicht\NC[nx=3] IPv4 \NC[nx=3] IPv6 \NC\NR
> \NC Sicherungsschicht \NC[nx=6] Ethernet \NC\NR
> \NC Bitübertragungsschicht \NC[nx=2] 100BASE-TX \NC[nx=2] 100BASE-T
> \NC[nx=2] 1000BASE-T \NC\NR
> \stopxtable
>
> \stoptext
>
> On 03/08/2017 04:29 PM, Henri Menke wrote:
>> Dear devs,
>>
>> Natural Tables are quite handy but their syntax is a little verbose.
>>
>> \bTABLE
>> \bTR
>> \bTD ... \eTD
>> \eTR
>> \eTABLE
>>
>> There exist nice extensions which make the format less verbose by mapping
>>
>> \startTABLE
>> \NC ... \NR\NR
>> \stopTABLE
>>
>> back to the original macros.
>>
>> The new method for tables, called xtables, is faster and seems to have less
>> problems than Natural Tables. However, the syntax is even more verbose
>>
>> \startxtable
>> \startxrow
>> \startxcell ... \stopxcell
>> \stopxrow
>> \stopxtable
>>
>> Can we have similar abbreviations as for Natural Tables? I am thinking of
>> something like
>>
>> \startXTABLE
>> \NC ... \NR\NR
>> \stopXTABLE
>>
>> I tried myself rewriting tabl-nte.mkiv for xtables but it is not
>> straightforward.
>>
>> What do you think of this proposal?
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Henri
>>
>
___
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://context.aanhet.net
archive : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki : http://contextgarden.net
___
Re: [NTG-context] Feature Request: xtables extensions
I quickly came up with something myself. Unfortunately, it involves
overloading of the original xtables. Perhaps there is a better way but it
works. I am happy to hear your opinions!
\unprotect
% Overload tabl_x_start_table
\unexpanded\def\tabl_x_start_table[#settings]% maybe two arguments:
[tag][settings] | [tag] | [settings]
{\bgroup
\let\NC\tabl_xte_start_nc
\let\NR\tabl_xte_start_nr
\tabl_x_prepare{#settings}%
\edef\tabl_x_current_buffer{\tabl_x_default_buffer}%
\buff_pickup{\tabl_x_current_buffer}{startxtable}{stopxtable}\relax\tabl_x_process\zerocount}
% xtable extensions
\newconditional\c_tabl_xte_in_nc
\unexpanded\def\tabl_xte_start_nr
{\stopxrow
\setfalse\c_tabl_xte_in_nc}
\unexpanded\def\tabl_xte_start_nc
{\futurelet\next\tabl_xte_start_nc_indeed}
\def\tabl_xte_start_nc_indeed
{\ifx\next\tabl_xte_start_nr \else
\expandafter\tabl_xte_start_nc_finish
\fi}
\def\tabl_xte_start_nc_finish#1\NC
{\ifconditional\c_tabl_xte_in_nc \else
\settrue\c_tabl_xte_in_nc
\startxrow[]%
\fi
\startxcell#1\stopxcell\NC}
\protect
\starttext
\startxtable[align={lohi,middle}]
\NC OSI-Schicht\NC[nx=6] Umsetzung \NC\NR
\NC Anwendungsschicht \NC[nx=2,ny=3] SOME/I \NC[nx=2,ny=3] AVB/TSN
\NC[nx=2,ny=3] DoIP \NC\NR
\NC Darstellungsschicht\NC\NR
\NC Sitzungsschicht\NC\NR
\NC Transportschicht \NC[nx=3] TCP \NC[nx=3] UDP \NC\NR
\NC Vermittlungsschicht\NC[nx=3] IPv4 \NC[nx=3] IPv6 \NC\NR
\NC Sicherungsschicht \NC[nx=6] Ethernet \NC\NR
\NC Bitübertragungsschicht \NC[nx=2] 100BASE-TX \NC[nx=2] 100BASE-T \NC[nx=2]
1000BASE-T \NC\NR
\stopxtable
\stoptext
On 03/08/2017 04:29 PM, Henri Menke wrote:
> Dear devs,
>
> Natural Tables are quite handy but their syntax is a little verbose.
>
> \bTABLE
> \bTR
> \bTD ... \eTD
> \eTR
> \eTABLE
>
> There exist nice extensions which make the format less verbose by mapping
>
> \startTABLE
> \NC ... \NR\NR
> \stopTABLE
>
> back to the original macros.
>
> The new method for tables, called xtables, is faster and seems to have less
> problems than Natural Tables. However, the syntax is even more verbose
>
> \startxtable
> \startxrow
> \startxcell ... \stopxcell
> \stopxrow
> \stopxtable
>
> Can we have similar abbreviations as for Natural Tables? I am thinking of
> something like
>
> \startXTABLE
> \NC ... \NR\NR
> \stopXTABLE
>
> I tried myself rewriting tabl-nte.mkiv for xtables but it is not
> straightforward.
>
> What do you think of this proposal?
>
> Kind regards,
> Henri
>
___
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://context.aanhet.net
archive : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki : http://contextgarden.net
___
[NTG-context] Feature Request: xtables extensions
Dear devs, Natural Tables are quite handy but their syntax is a little verbose. \bTABLE \bTR \bTD ... \eTD \eTR \eTABLE There exist nice extensions which make the format less verbose by mapping \startTABLE \NC ... \NR\NR \stopTABLE back to the original macros. The new method for tables, called xtables, is faster and seems to have less problems than Natural Tables. However, the syntax is even more verbose \startxtable \startxrow \startxcell ... \stopxcell \stopxrow \stopxtable Can we have similar abbreviations as for Natural Tables? I am thinking of something like \startXTABLE \NC ... \NR\NR \stopXTABLE I tried myself rewriting tabl-nte.mkiv for xtables but it is not straightforward. What do you think of this proposal? Kind regards, Henri ___ 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://context.aanhet.net archive : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___
Re: [NTG-context] Bug in Natural Tables
On 03/08/2017 10:52 AM, Thomas A. Schmitz wrote:
> On 03/08/2017 10:28 AM, Henri Menke wrote:
>> \starttext
>>
>> \startTABLE[align={lohi,middle}]
>> \NC OSI-Schicht\NC[nx=6] Umsetzung \NC\NR
>> \NC Anwendungsschicht \NC[nx=2,ny=3] SOME/I \NC[nx=2,ny=3] AVB/TSN
>> \NC[nx=2,ny=3] DoIP \NC\NR
>> \NC Darstellungsschicht\NC\NR
>> \NC Sitzungsschicht\NC\NR
>> \NC Transportschicht \NC[nx=3] TCP \NC[nx=3] UDP \NC\NR
>> \NC Vermittlungsschicht\NC[nx=3] IPv4 \NC[nx=3] IPv6 \NC\NR
>> \NC Sicherungsschicht \NC[nx=6] Ethernet \NC\NR
>> \NC Bitübertragungsschicht \NC[nx=2] 100BASE-TX \NC[nx=2] 100BASE-T
>> \NC[nx=2] 1000BASE-T \NC\NR
>> \stopTABLE
>>
>> \stoptext
>
> Because that's not a natural table. You're confusing the old TABLE
> environment (\startTABLE) with natural tables (\bTABLE; \NC[nx=3] should be
> \bTD[nx=e]). And it's inconsistent. If you want six columns, you have to tell
> ConTeXt what it should do in rows 3 and 4, where you define only one column.
No, this is Natural Tables. The macros I am using are defined in tabl-nte.mkiv
and the header there states
%D This module provides an easy way to use natural in a similiar
%D way as the older table module (based on the \TABLE\ macros) and
%D the newer tabulate module.
Nevertheless, as you requested, here the same bug with the traditional Natural
Table macros:
\starttext
\bTABLE[align={lohi,middle}]
\bTR\bTD OSI-Schicht\eTD\bTD[nx=6] Umsetzung \eTD\eTR
\bTR\bTD Anwendungsschicht \eTD\bTD[nx=2,ny=3] SOME/I
\eTD\bTD[nx=2,ny=3] AVB/TSN \eTD\bTD[nx=2,ny=3] DoIP \eTD\eTR
\bTR\bTD Darstellungsschicht\eTD\eTR
\bTR\bTD Sitzungsschicht\eTD\eTR
\bTR\bTD Transportschicht \eTD\bTD[nx=3] TCP \eTD\bTD[nx=3] UDP
\eTD\eTR
\bTR\bTD Vermittlungsschicht\eTD\bTD[nx=3] IPv4 \eTD\bTD[nx=3] IPv6
\eTD\eTR
\bTR\bTD Sicherungsschicht \eTD\bTD[nx=6] Ethernet \eTD\eTR
\bTR\bTD Bitübertragungsschicht \eTD\bTD[nx=2] 100BASE-TX \eTD\bTD[nx=2]
100BASE-T \eTD\bTD[nx=2] 1000BASE-T \eTD\eTR
\eTABLE
\stoptext
> Thomas
> ___
> 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://context.aanhet.net
> archive : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
> wiki : http://contextgarden.net
> ___
___
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://context.aanhet.net
archive : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki : http://contextgarden.net
___
Re: [NTG-context] Bug in Natural Tables
On 03/08/2017 10:28 AM, Henri Menke wrote:
\starttext
\startTABLE[align={lohi,middle}]
\NC OSI-Schicht\NC[nx=6] Umsetzung \NC\NR
\NC Anwendungsschicht \NC[nx=2,ny=3] SOME/I \NC[nx=2,ny=3] AVB/TSN
\NC[nx=2,ny=3] DoIP \NC\NR
\NC Darstellungsschicht\NC\NR
\NC Sitzungsschicht\NC\NR
\NC Transportschicht \NC[nx=3] TCP \NC[nx=3] UDP \NC\NR
\NC Vermittlungsschicht\NC[nx=3] IPv4 \NC[nx=3] IPv6 \NC\NR
\NC Sicherungsschicht \NC[nx=6] Ethernet \NC\NR
\NC Bitübertragungsschicht \NC[nx=2] 100BASE-TX \NC[nx=2] 100BASE-T \NC[nx=2]
1000BASE-T \NC\NR
\stopTABLE
\stoptext
Because that's not a natural table. You're confusing the old TABLE
environment (\startTABLE) with natural tables (\bTABLE; \NC[nx=3] should
be \bTD[nx=e]). And it's inconsistent. If you want six columns, you have
to tell ConTeXt what it should do in rows 3 and 4, where you define
only one column.
Thomas
___
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://context.aanhet.net
archive : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki : http://contextgarden.net
___
[NTG-context] Bug in Natural Tables
Dear list,
I wanted to show off the wonders of Natural Tables in TeX.SX but the table I
wanted to make escapes out of the page. Why does the width explode so much?
MWE is below.
Cheers, Henri
---
\starttext
\startTABLE[align={lohi,middle}]
\NC OSI-Schicht\NC[nx=6] Umsetzung \NC\NR
\NC Anwendungsschicht \NC[nx=2,ny=3] SOME/I \NC[nx=2,ny=3] AVB/TSN
\NC[nx=2,ny=3] DoIP \NC\NR
\NC Darstellungsschicht\NC\NR
\NC Sitzungsschicht\NC\NR
\NC Transportschicht \NC[nx=3] TCP \NC[nx=3] UDP \NC\NR
\NC Vermittlungsschicht\NC[nx=3] IPv4 \NC[nx=3] IPv6 \NC\NR
\NC Sicherungsschicht \NC[nx=6] Ethernet \NC\NR
\NC Bitübertragungsschicht \NC[nx=2] 100BASE-TX \NC[nx=2] 100BASE-T \NC[nx=2]
1000BASE-T \NC\NR
\stopTABLE
\stoptext
___
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://context.aanhet.net
archive : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki : http://contextgarden.net
___
