Re[2]: [NTG-context] ConTeXt Switcher?
At 23:06 08/12/2003, Giuseppe Bilotta wrote: Monday, December 8, 2003 Bob Kerstetter wrote: I know XML source should work, but at least for me, creating XML source is unproductive. I work with a text editor and find writing this: ``Hello world,'' says HAL. much more productive than writing this: p#8220;Hello world#8221;/p, says HAL. both are wrong in the perspective of xml (structured document coding): quotationHello World/quotation, says HAL is the way to go Hans ___ ntg-context mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
Re: [NTG-context] ConTeXt Switcher?
On Dec 8, 2003, at 2:33 PM, Henning Hraban Ramm wrote:
Am Montag, 08.12.03, um 18:20 Uhr (Europe/Zurich) schrieb Bob
Kerstetter:
ConTeXt is very attractive because of its detailed control, layers,
colors, few or no packages(!), magical developers, and on and on.
It can obvious produce PDF. Can it also produce HTML and Word from
the same document?
The normal way to get both PDF and HTML is using a XML source.
You know of ConTeXts native XML mode?
AFAIK you can import XML or HTML into MS Office, too, so you need no
real Word DOC output.
Or perhaps there's an other XML to RTF/DOC Konverter...
I know XML source should work, but at least for me, creating XML source
is unproductive. I work with a text editor and find writing this:
``Hello world,'' says HAL.
much more productive than writing this:
p#8220;Hello world#8221;/p, says HAL.
Maybe I'm missing something, but for writing, XML's markup requirements
-- which are invisible to field-based data entry screen -- are way too
intense for hand-editing. TeX source is much less verbose. It is easier
to create, proof (both visually and audibly), spell check
troubleshoot, etc. I have not seen an editor capable of doing XML
source in a productive manner, like (La)TeX with text editor.
This is probably taboo, but surely the smart thing to do is start from Word, generate
some XML with macros, and produce some HTML with stylesheets, some PDF with ConTeXt.
BTW you can generate some simple Context with VB macros and hand-edit -- saves a whole
load of mundane stuff. I can go from a web page to PDF in under 15 minutes using the
Word macros I have for Context.
Christopher
o00o
Since light travels faster than sound, isnt that why
some people appear bright until you hear them speak
Steve Wright
?'mx%g({`Xm ' ffX)?'m
Re[2]: [NTG-context] ConTeXt Switcher?
Wednesday, December 10, 2003 Christopher G D Tipper wrote: This is probably taboo, but surely the smart thing to do is start from Word, generate some XML with macros, and produce some HTML with stylesheets, some PDF with ConTeXt. BTW you can generate some simple Context with VB macros and hand-edit -- saves a whole load of mundane stuff. I can go from a web page to PDF in under 15 minutes using the Word macros I have for Context. Not that I see the purpose of using Word in the frist place. Any decent editor has enough macro power to do the same. -- Giuseppe Oblomov Bilotta ___ ntg-context mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
Re: [NTG-context] ConTeXt Switcher?
On Dec 9, 2003, at 5:39 PM, Christopher G D Tipper wrote: On Dec 8, 2003, at 2:33 PM, Henning Hraban Ramm wrote: Am Montag, 08.12.03, um 18:20 Uhr (Europe/Zurich) schrieb Bob Kerstetter: ConTeXt is very attractive because of its detailed control, layers, colors, few or no packages(!), magical developers, and on and on. It can obvious produce PDF. Can it also produce HTML and Word from the same document? The normal way to get both PDF and HTML is using a XML source. You know of ConTeXts native XML mode? AFAIK you can import XML or HTML into MS Office, too, so you need no real Word DOC output. Or perhaps there's an other XML to RTF/DOC Konverter... I know XML source should work, but at least for me, creating XML source is unproductive. I work with a text editor and find writing this: ``Hello world,'' says HAL. much more productive than writing this: p#8220;Hello world#8221;/p, says HAL. Maybe I'm missing something, but for writing, XML's markup requirements -- which are invisible to field-based data entry screen -- are way too intense for hand-editing. TeX source is much less verbose. It is easier to create, proof (both visually and audibly), spell check troubleshoot, etc. I have not seen an editor capable of doing XML source in a productive manner, like (La)TeX with text editor. This is probably taboo, but surely the smart thing to do is start from Word, generate some XML with macros, and produce some HTML with stylesheets, some PDF with ConTeXt. BTW you can generate some simple Context with VB macros and hand-edit -- saves a whole load of mundane stuff. I can go from a web page to PDF in under 15 minutes using the Word macros I have for Context. Thanks for the suggestion. I don't really have a problem with Word for writing letters and the like. For large docs, however, it's just too unpredictable. Images move around. Numbered lists break. Cross references change. Formatting blows up if you even look at an end-paragraph mark (where all the paragraph info is stored). Styles revert to their defaults. Word crashes, often. My main source documents would be in a proprietary file format known for its tendencies toward corruption. I used Word for 15 years and it's just too much pain. My schedules are too tight to trust it. But least I sound like an MS basher, Word TOCs and Tables are excellent. Mail merge to email using MAPI it cool. And I did once write a complete Windows help system generator using only Word Basic. This was before VBA, before you had to be an OO programmer to write Word macros. :) These days I keep Word for Windows safety contained in a Mac OS X Remote Desktop Connection window. ;-) ___ ntg-context mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
Re: [NTG-context] ConTeXt Switcher?
On Dec 8, 2003, at 12:55 PM, Peter Münster wrote: On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, Bob Kerstetter wrote: It can obvious produce PDF. Can it also produce HTML and Word from the same document? Hello, I like TeX4ht for LaTeX. It would be great, if TeX4ht and ConTeXt work together. It seems, that it works well with plain-TeX, so why not with ConTeXt? TeX4ht is excellent. It's what I use for LaTeX to HTML and Word (via HTML convertion). It would require writing a custom configuration file to make it work with ConTeXt. I could be done, I just don't know how to do it. I have tried repeated to understand TeX4ht's conversion, but have never succeeded. ___ ntg-context mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
Re: [NTG-context] ConTeXt Switcher?
On Dec 8, 2003, at 2:33 PM, Henning Hraban Ramm wrote: Am Montag, 08.12.03, um 18:20 Uhr (Europe/Zurich) schrieb Bob Kerstetter: ConTeXt is very attractive because of its detailed control, layers, colors, few or no packages(!), magical developers, and on and on. It can obvious produce PDF. Can it also produce HTML and Word from the same document? The normal way to get both PDF and HTML is using a XML source. You know of ConTeXts native XML mode? AFAIK you can import XML or HTML into MS Office, too, so you need no real Word DOC output. Or perhaps there's an other XML to RTF/DOC Konverter... I know XML source should work, but at least for me, creating XML source is unproductive. I work with a text editor and find writing this: ``Hello world,'' says HAL. much more productive than writing this: p#8220;Hello world#8221;/p, says HAL. Maybe I'm missing something, but for writing, XML's markup requirements -- which are invisible to field-based data entry screen -- are way too intense for hand-editing. TeX source is much less verbose. It is easier to create, proof (both visually and audibly), spell check troubleshoot, etc. I have not seen an editor capable of doing XML source in a productive manner, like (La)TeX with text editor. OmniOutliner for OS X is close to being close, but too far from the goal to use. Is there some special thing I don't know? ??? Thanks. Bob Kerstetter http://homepage.mac.com/bkerstetter/ ___ ntg-context mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
Re[2]: [NTG-context] ConTeXt Switcher?
Monday, December 8, 2003 Bob Kerstetter wrote: I know XML source should work, but at least for me, creating XML source is unproductive. I work with a text editor and find writing this: ``Hello world,'' says HAL. much more productive than writing this: p#8220;Hello world#8221;/p, says HAL. Maybe I'm missing something, but for writing, XML's markup requirements -- which are invisible to field-based data entry screen -- are way too intense for hand-editing. TeX source is much less verbose. It is easier to create, proof (both visually and audibly), spell check troubleshoot, etc. I have not seen an editor capable of doing XML source in a productive manner, like (La)TeX with text editor. I agree with you. Productive editing of XML document requires specialized editors, and I still haven't found an (open source) one that was up to the task. Vex is quite promising, in this regard. -- Giuseppe Oblomov Bilotta ___ ntg-context mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
