Well, well, ConTeXt can help you if you give him a little love and don't try pull all triggers at once. Having written my Ph.D. in LaTeX and published couple of books in ConTeXT I can assure you, ConTeXt is surprisingly better suited for "scientific" texts (oops sorry, I just mean text with footnotes, bibliography, a couple of indexes, list of illustrations, definitions whatever) even if you disregard its typographic quality. That's of course my entirely subjective opinion.
Piotr 2009/12/29 Manuel P. <ayeye.sysfo...@gmail.com>: > Il 29/12/2009 3.48, ber...@pobox.com ha scritto: >> >> Manuel> Another "problem" is the "fluidity" of ConTeXt: it changes >> Manuel> rapidly and the documentation is left behind. >> >> Maybe for some things, but I'm using a manual from 2004 and from my >> point of view very little has changed. >> >> I would say the interface is remarkably stable, so hopefully that >> might be some encouragement to come back one day. >> >> > > Sure! > > -- > Manuel P. > > ___________________________________________________________________________________ > 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 : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ > wiki : http://contextgarden.net > ___________________________________________________________________________________ > -- http://okle.pl ___________________________________________________________________________________ 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 : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___________________________________________________________________________________
