On Sun, 24 Dec 2017 16:01:27 +0100
Gour wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Dec 2017 15:04:35 -0700
> Alan Braslau wrote:
>
> > This analysis is not quite correct.
>
> Thank you for your input.
>
> > I use the "bibliography" subsystem as a general database
On Sat, 23 Dec 2017 15:04:35 -0700
Alan Braslau wrote:
> This analysis is not quite correct.
Thank you for your input.
> I use the "bibliography" subsystem as a general database tool,
> defining glossaries, tables of crystallographic symmetries, catalogs
> of
This analysis is not quite correct.
The mkiv bibliography system is not rigid at all, in fact it is
eminently configurable. However, the APA specification that is
programmed is rigidly adhered to, and it is up to the responsibility of
the user to configure any desired deviations.
The outstanding
On 2017-12-05 13:20, Gour wrote:
On Sun, 7 May 2017 23:33:30 +0200
r.erm...@hccnet.nl wrote:
I recently finished a book project in multimarkdown, which I
converted to LaTeX (I could not use ConTeXt because of its limited
bibliographical functions in comparison to BibLatex).
Just wonder, since
On Sun, 7 May 2017 23:33:30 +0200
r.erm...@hccnet.nl wrote:
> I recently finished a book project in multimarkdown, which I
> converted to LaTeX (I could not use ConTeXt because of its limited
> bibliographical functions in comparison to BibLatex).
Just wonder, since I plan to embrace ConTeXt for
I recently finished a book project in multimarkdown, which I converted to LaTeX
(I could not use ConTeXt because of its limited bibliographical functions in
comparison to BibLatex).
It worked fine. If I remember correctly, I preferred multimarkdown over
markdown for more possibilities
For what it's worth, the folks I work with would find it very valuable. Our
team currently composes on drive and I have to kick things in various ways
via pandoc to get it into our ConTeXt server (multi-user editing with
floobits is ... kinda neat). Reducing complexity of that would be
wonderful.
On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 11:12:41PM +0200, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
> On 5 May 2017 at 21:54, Aditya Mahajan wrote:
> > On Thu, 4 May 2017, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
> >
> >> There's a really nice module for processing markdown:
> >> https://github.com/Witiko/markdown
> >> that has been presented
It’s a plain text format for writing structured documents, based on formatting
conventions from email and usenet.
http://commonmark.org
-m
On May 6, 2017 8:42:46 AM PDT, John Culleton wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: "Hans
From: "Hans Hagen"
Sent: Saturday, May 6, 2017 4:30 AM
To: ntg-context@ntg.nl
Subject: Re: [NTG-context] Module for Markdown: any volunteer to make a
ConTeXt interface?
On 5/5/2017 9:54 PM, Aditya Mahajan wrote: > On Thu, 4
On 5/5/2017 9:54 PM, Aditya Mahajan wrote:
On Thu, 4 May 2017, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
Hi,
There's a really nice module for processing markdown:
https://github.com/Witiko/markdown
that has been presented during the TUG meeting and is included in TeX
Live.
This is a fork of luamark (by the
On 5 May 2017 at 21:54, Aditya Mahajan wrote:
> On Thu, 4 May 2017, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
>
>> There's a really nice module for processing markdown:
>> https://github.com/Witiko/markdown
>> that has been presented during the TUG meeting and is included in TeX
>> Live.
>
> This is a fork of
On Thu, 4 May 2017, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
Hi,
There's a really nice module for processing markdown:
https://github.com/Witiko/markdown
that has been presented during the TUG meeting and is included in TeX Live.
This is a fork of luamark (by the author of pandoc). Wouldn't it be better
Hi,
There's a really nice module for processing markdown:
https://github.com/Witiko/markdown
that has been presented during the TUG meeting and is included in TeX Live.
It theoretically works for ConTeXt (the output is perfectly usable),
but it needs a cleanup of the user interface to turn
14 matches
Mail list logo