First of all, I'm grateful for your offer, and hope that you find it valuable 

However, I must say that this isn't what I had in mind. I wanted to create more 
of a reference, a complete reference, and one that's of course not meant to be 
read from cover to cover. What you're suggesting sounds more like a tutorial to 

Don't get me wrong: we need both a reference and a tutorial. If necessary, I'll 
create a quick tutorial that demonstrates how to quickly use ConTeXt, and gives 
hints on where to look further in my book, or whatever else you and others see 
needs to be written.

This is a bit interesting, though. Should I start with a tutorial, or the 
reference? I personally lean more towards the reference, but of course if the 
community thinks that the tutorial first would be more valuable, then that'll 
get the higher priority.

What I had in mind was a single reference that taught you all you needed to 
become as experienced with ConTeXt as Hans Hagen et al, and all the information 
you'll need to essentially be able to achieve whatever you want. I found (and 
hope the ConTeXt developers take no offense) that the documentation for how to 
become an advanced user was nonexistent, and for some specific cases more 
scattered around. Thus, the book was born.

In other words, it's a book that teaches you how to become an advanced ConTeXt 
user, certainly far beyond "A not so short introduction to ConTeXt". Would the 
ConTeXt community more prefer such a book, or a more quick introductory book 
for ConTeXt? Because I don't think these two would serve well as one, but 
rather the former backing up the latter, i.e., two different books.

If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the 

maillist : /
webpage  : / (mirror)
archive  :
wiki     :

Reply via email to