On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Henning Hraban Ramm wrote:
> Even if math is "typical" for TeX, it's not typical for ConTeXt.
>
> I think the typical university user is content with LaTeX.
> ConTeXt is for those who like to design their own layout.
And that's, unfortunately, a poor view to take. I would love to use
ConTeXt for more of my academic writing, as it makes a lot of tasks much
easier, not just layout and design. Unfortunately, it's inability to play
like LaTeX when it comes to even such basic things as footnotes, means
that I have to constantly turn back to LaTeX whenever I need to write
something for work or school.
> Again, I don't think that bibliographies are basic.
> But I'm no scientific user.
And for those of us who are, bibliographies are *crucial* and should be
considered a basic part of any tpesetting program that wants to be taken
seriously. And while m-bib is usually sufficient, it too has enough
quirks that it's just not worth the time to even bother if you want to
submit a paper that has a special format requirement for the
bibliographies.
William D. Neumann
---
"Well I could be a genius, if I just put my mind to it.
And I...I could do anything, if only I could get 'round to it.
Oh we were brought up on the space-race, now they expect you to clean toilets.
When you've seen how big the world is, how can you make do with this?
If you want me, I'll be sleeping in - sleeping in throughout these glory days."
-- Jarvis Cocker
Think of XML as Lisp for COBOL programmers.
-- Tony-A (some guy on /.)
_______________________________________________
ntg-context mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
