[NTG-context] Re: ConTeXt Switcher?
someone (not sure who) said: 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. You're missing something. For one, your above example would be: pqHello world/q, says HAL./p Second, try something like nXML mode for emacs, or the XML plug-in for jEdit. Real-time markup validation, tag-completion, spell-checking, etc. Finally, you're missing the biggest point of all: XML is about reuse. You cleanly separate markup from presentation so that -- among other things -- you can trivially transform that to different output. Bruce ___ ntg-context mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
[NTG-context] Re: ConTeXt Switcher?
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 01:27:34 +0100 From: Giuseppe Bilotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re[2]: [NTG-context] ConTeXt Switcher? Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 You missed the point. You markup and style your document using Word styles, and then XML is a matter of search and replace. I am not interested in Word per se, but I find using emacs to insert markup during document creation gets in the way of my thought processes. This way I can push markup worries to the editorial stage. People are fond of pointing out Words vices, and I wouldn't quibble with arguments about its stability, but it is about time OpenOffice and its ilk stopped resting on their laurels and started implementing some macro capability. I notice that AbiWord has a DocBook output format, but how well integrated this is I don't know. On Micro$oft's part if they had some real competition a real market in third-party templates might arrive. As it stands I have a 50% solution that handles footnotes and lists, but re-distribution is hampered by the way Word handles its templates and virus worries. Theoretically I could do tables and limited image markup using the same techniques. Leveraging the visual layout tools of a word-processor makes so much sense I wonder at the mentality of people still struggling with text-editors. I have emacs set up on my machine, but it really looks like back to the future from my point of view. I use WinEdt when I'm booted into Windows. btw you can use the same technique to generate native Context markup. It needs hand-editting, but as a rough draft, this works fine for me, and I don't have to re-invent the wheel every time I have a new document. Christopher ___ ntg-context mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
Re: [NTG-context] Re: ConTeXt Switcher?
Hi Christopher, On Dec 11, 2003, at 11:16 AM, Christopher G. D. Tipper wrote: Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 01:27:34 +0100 From: Giuseppe Bilotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re[2]: [NTG-context] ConTeXt Switcher? Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 You missed the point. You markup and style your document using Word styles, and then XML is a matter of search and replace. I am not interested in Word per se, but I find using emacs to insert markup during document creation gets in the way of my thought processes. This way I can push markup worries to the editorial stage. People are fond of pointing out Words vices, and I wouldn't quibble with arguments about its stability, but it is about time OpenOffice and its ilk stopped resting on their laurels and started implementing some macro capability. I notice that AbiWord has a DocBook output format, but how well integrated this is I don't know. On Micro$oft's part if they had some real competition a real market in third-party templates might arrive. As it stands I have a 50% solution that handles footnotes and lists, but re-distribution is hampered by the way Word handles its templates and virus worries. Theoretically I could do tables and limited image markup using the same techniques. Leveraging the visual layout tools of a word-processor makes so much sense I wonder at the mentality of people still struggling with text-editors. I have emacs set up on my machine, but it really looks like back to the future from my point of view. I use WinEdt when I'm booted into Windows. btw you can use the same technique to generate native Context markup. It needs hand-editting, but as a rough draft, this works fine for me, and I don't have to re-invent the wheel every time I have a new document. You're point is well taken. I once wrote a complete Windows Help system generator using Word Basic macros and nothing else. If fed correctly structured documents, the macros would mark up all topics for display, page browsing, cross references, context sensitivity and indexes. It would then call the compiler. It took about 40 minutes to markup and compile a help system equivalent to 400 pages of text, graphics and all, on 1993-era Windows machines. The macros could also clean the files and start over if major changes were needed in the text. It was a freebie and efficient alternative to RoboHelp. I have just lost too much work to Word-corrupt files and Word-crashed systems to continue with MS. TeXShop (Mac OS X) has never crashed or hung in 15 months of use. The files have never become corrupt. I am looking at Nisus, or perhaps the OS X native TextEdit, as visual editors for the reasons you applaud Word. They both write rtf natively. I'm also looking at TeX4ht with ConTeXt. For now, TeXShop, LaTeX and TeX4ht are more flexible and stable than Word. We'll see. :) Take care. BK ___ ntg-context mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
