Re: [NTG-context] ConTeXt vs. LaTeX -> XML/MathML -> XHTML/SVG/PNG -> ePub
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010, Grant W. Petty wrote: On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Grant W. Petty wrote: I am trying out ConTeXt for the very first time, hoping to assess whether it's worth re-tooling from LaTeX for authoring scientific textbooks. To elaborate on this comment which I made in another thread, I have written and self-published two university-level atmospheric science textbooks in LaTeX which are doing quite well by the standards of my small field. I am now also contracting to publish textbooks for other authors. I am very interested in eventually reformatting my own existing books, as well as future books, as documents that can be both printed as professional-quality bound textbooks as well as distributed as e-books -- for example ePub format and/or XHTML. The principle technical hurdle seems to be posed by the heavy use of mathematical equations. I want the math in the electronic versions to be very clean and scalable (e.g., SVG; eventually MathML as e-readers do a better job of supporting it). While there are programs like TeX4HT and LaTeXML that convert LaTeX source to XML/MathML, they seem to have trouble with unfamiliar packages and macros, and the math rendering seems quite imperfect as well (though I can't yet tell whether that's a problem with the conversion to MathML or rather with current e-readers imperfect support for MathML). I think that it is better to test mathml on a recent web browser rather than ereaders. My question is whether anyone has insight into the relative strengths of LaTeX vs. ConTeXt as an authoring environment in the specific case that the author wants high-quality multi-format outputs for print and electronic distribution. An example workflow I could imagine would be ConTeXT or LaTeX source -> XML/MathML (DocBook?) -> PDF or XHTML with math encoded as MathML and/or SVG and/or PNG -> ePub with high-quality math readable on various commercial readers I'm quite new to this subject matter, having only begun to learn about e-publishing formats a couple of weeks ago, so I'll welcome any advice, however basic. Context/latex to xml will never work unless you are willing to restrict yourself to a subset of supported input syntax. If you are willing to do that, then a cleaner alternative to is to *input* all your text as XML. For plain text XML is not too verbose, but MathML is a pain to type by hand. There are various libraries that convert tex math markup to mathml that may ease the task. If the math is not too complicated, one option is to use asciimath. ConTeXt has some basic support for asciimath, and I believe that it is possible to convert asciimath to mathml. Another option is to explore Microsoft's linear math format. It has a well defined grammer, so in principle it will be much easier to convert it to latex/context/mathml input. The big advantage of using such a setup is that you can use the same source to display the document on web (or epub, which is essentially zipped xml files) and to generate pdf (context handles xml input very well). One less toolchain to debug. It's my impression, by the way, that ConTeXT does not directly support AMSMath, which might mean having to not only rewrite a lot of existing source but also to re-learn how to write math. You can start by looking at http://dl.contextgarden.net/myway/context-latex-math.pdf Aditya ___ 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 ___
[NTG-context] ConTeXt vs. LaTeX -> XML/MathML -> XHTML/SVG/PNG -> ePub
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Grant W. Petty wrote: > I am trying out ConTeXt for the very first time, hoping to assess > whether it's worth re-tooling from LaTeX for authoring scientific > textbooks. > To elaborate on this comment which I made in another thread, I have written and self-published two university-level atmospheric science textbooks in LaTeX which are doing quite well by the standards of my small field. I am now also contracting to publish textbooks for other authors. I am very interested in eventually reformatting my own existing books, as well as future books, as documents that can be both printed as professional-quality bound textbooks as well as distributed as e-books -- for example ePub format and/or XHTML. The principle technical hurdle seems to be posed by the heavy use of mathematical equations. I want the math in the electronic versions to be very clean and scalable (e.g., SVG; eventually MathML as e-readers do a better job of supporting it). While there are programs like TeX4HT and LaTeXML that convert LaTeX source to XML/MathML, they seem to have trouble with unfamiliar packages and macros, and the math rendering seems quite imperfect as well (though I can't yet tell whether that's a problem with the conversion to MathML or rather with current e-readers imperfect support for MathML). My question is whether anyone has insight into the relative strengths of LaTeX vs. ConTeXt as an authoring environment in the specific case that the author wants high-quality multi-format outputs for print and electronic distribution. An example workflow I could imagine would be ConTeXT or LaTeX source -> XML/MathML (DocBook?) -> PDF or XHTML with math encoded as MathML and/or SVG and/or PNG -> ePub with high-quality math readable on various commercial readers I'm quite new to this subject matter, having only begun to learn about e-publishing formats a couple of weeks ago, so I'll welcome any advice, however basic. It's my impression, by the way, that ConTeXT does not directly support AMSMath, which might mean having to not only rewrite a lot of existing source but also to re-learn how to write math. Thanks, Grant ___ 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 ___
Re: [NTG-context] ConTeXt vs. LaTeX
On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 11:09:01PM +0200, Siep Kroonenberg wrote: > > The right way to handle this would have been to copy just the > relevant code fragment to a package or classfile of your own and > modify it. The code would have looked a lot hackier than > corresponding Context code, but as long as it sits neatly tucked > away in a package of its own, you wouldn't have to let that bother > you. > Ah, but I have only simplest experience in TeX programming (simple, non-recursive \defs and \lets are my greatest achievment) and what you are suggesting is still out of my reach.. 1. I know very little of plain TeX and LaTeX internals to be able to do anything significant programming for latex. 2. I don't like asking for help. Partly because I don't want to bother people, partly because I'm impatient waiting for an answer. When I ask for help, I'm really desperate. Context has enabled me to do typesetting the way I want without too much 'expert' advice and customization.. I had a few questions on Context a few years ago when reference manuals were non-existant.. But now I'm able to do everything I want on my own. Still with virtually no 'real' TeX programming. ___ ntg-context mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
Re: [NTG-context] ConTeXt vs. LaTeX
On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 06:58:48PM +0200, Zeljko Vrba wrote: > On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 04:07:43PM +0200, Mojca Miklavec wrote: > > > > I'm not sure if these are only the problems at the beginning (since I > > have to look for almost any command I use) and would soon disappear or > > would the general advice be "don't use ConTeXt if LaTeX suits your > > needs". What are your opinions about that? Try it for a bit and see whether you like it. Some people find that it makes things simpler and more logical. It is a different way of working, which may or may not suit you. For me personally, somehow Context is a bad match, and it has been fighting all the way. Therefore I use Context only when I have to. > I learned Context because Latex didn't suit my > needs (concrete example: for my diploma work, my mentor required that there > must not be "Chapter" heading for each chapter.. If I put \chapter*, then > it didn't appear in the table of contents.. the solution was dirty - copy > the report class file to local directory and edit it.. however if such a simple > problem has such a dirty solution, how could I cope with tougher problems? The right way to handle this would have been to copy just the relevant code fragment to a package or classfile of your own and modify it. The code would have looked a lot hackier than corresponding Context code, but as long as it sits neatly tucked away in a package of its own, you wouldn't have to let that bother you. LaTeX source code is generally well-documented, and much easier to find your way around in than Context code. For presentations there are pdfscreen and pdfslide, and David Storey has done nteractivestuff with pdf. So don't underestimate the possibilities of LaTeX. -- Siep Kroonenberg ___ ntg-context mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
Re: [NTG-context] ConTeXt vs. LaTeX
On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 04:07:43PM +0200, Mojca Miklavec wrote: > > I'm not sure if these are only the problems at the beginning (since I > have to look for almost any command I use) and would soon disappear or > would the general advice be "don't use ConTeXt if LaTeX suits your > needs". What are your opinions about that? > Being a Context user, I also miss some of nice default formatting of LaTeX. However, the need for some specific formatting which is weakly handled in LaTeX made me use Context and I never regret it. For example, automatic layout of text floating around figures. Or the possibility of typesetting text in columns (see my document prepared in Context at http://oss.unist.hr/~zvrba/spa.zip there I typeset text next to C code..) The best thing I find about Context is that everything I ever thought of (e.g. in one document I rotated the table 90 degrees to be parallel with long side of A4 paper and text flowed around the table) is nicely integrated in Context and there is no need for extra packages like in Latex. Some things are undocumented in 'official' manuals (e.g. \hyphenatedurl) but I found them easily by grepping through the code.. I settled myself on a style that fits the kind of documents I write and I reuse it from a single environment.. Sure I miss nice formatting of Latex (I find my own design rather spartane) and some packages (e.g. for typesetting the code, like vgrind) but the consistency and easiness of doing typesetting the Context-way (defining your own enumerations, 'theorems', headers/footers, placing figures and tables within text, page layout, etc..) outweighs those drawbacks.. My advice (though, it may not be very popular here) is to stick to Latex while it suits your needs. And this advice I would give for any kind of tool - why change it if it isn't broken? I learned Context because Latex didn't suit my needs (concrete example: for my diploma work, my mentor required that there must not be "Chapter" heading for each chapter.. If I put \chapter*, then it didn't appear in the table of contents.. the solution was dirty - copy the report class file to local directory and edit it.. however if such a simple problem has such a dirty solution, how could I cope with tougher problems? So I switched to Context and never use Latex any more..) I must say that the beginners manual is excellent and is almost everything you need.. For harder stuff, Hans and other TeX hackers on this list have been an invaluable (and quick - I was in a real hurry writing my diploma) help - THANKS GUYS! ___ ntg-context mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
[NTG-context] ConTeXt vs. LaTeX
At the very first moment I saw some manuals I was highly impressed of what ConTeXt was able to do and decided to switch from LaTeX to the new typesetting system. I've put (probably to much) effort to typeset my first presentation and a couple of other documents in ConTeXt after which I realised that it takes me far less time if I continue using LaTeX for some documents (no need to redefine styles for headings, simple tables easier to typeset there, ...). I'm not sure if these are only the problems at the beginning (since I have to look for almost any command I use) and would soon disappear or would the general advice be "don't use ConTeXt if LaTeX suits your needs". What are your opinions about that? I guess I could be missing something. \usemodule[pre-'something'] could be a quick solution for presentations (and I needed quite some time to realise that, but I've made up my own style anyway) - does anything similar exist also for "LaTeX-like" documents? I can write something for myself, but it still doesn't solve the problem if I want to convince someone to start using ConTeXt as a substitute for simple LaTeX documents as long he's unable to achive nice default formatting in one or two lines. Thanks a lot, Mojca Miklavec ___ ntg-context mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
