Document Crafting, Objectively (ConTeXt)
daniel.a.joyce at worldnet.att.net
Thu Mar 7 21:51:51 UTC 2002
On Thursday 07 March 2002 11:44 am, you wrote:
> > Well, personally I like the way I can programmatically design a
> > document. I like the fact that I can build a simple 'meta structure'
> > and include LaTeX files in that, in whatever ordering I like. The fact
> > that all the sectional/chapter numbering and whatnot is automatically
> > regenerated is a real plus. It makes a sort of fiendish sense that I
> > can build my documents with a simple Makefile.
> I do, too, but wouldn't it be nice to use the Smalltalk language instead
> of TeX? Almost every little language blows, and LaTeX is no exception.
> It's in fact an exemplar.
> > The ability to transform LaTeX into other "final" output formats is a
> > great boon, but it's also quite a pain...I like to have a neutral
> > document that can be PDF or HTML in it's final form, but pdflatex and
> > latex2html don't work together very well.
> Unlike the other poster, I don't thisk LaTeX is especially well
> transformable. If you want to support text and HTML in addition to PS
> and PDF, you should use an SGML system like DocBook. You will also have
> to live with output that doesn't look as pretty.
Well, I suggesrt checking out ConTeXt which is a lot cleaner, and the few
ugly bits are always gettin cleaned up. It's very self consistent and nice,
and the feature set is stable, and growing. It even wraps the ugliness of
other oft-used modules, like AMS Tex
It's very nice.
More information about the Squeak-dev