Re: [NTG-context] When to migrate from MKII to MKIV?
Alan BRASLAU wrote: The big problem for scientific writers is that publishers at very best will accept plain LaTeX. A notable exception is the American Physical Society who developed revTeX, a LaTeX package well suited to their publishing style. The American Chemical Society will accept plain LaTeX. Often, other scientific publishers as for Word! Rather off-topic, but as I am a chemist (and also write the achemso LaTeX package for the ACS), I'd point out that many more physical chemistry journals will accept LaTeX material. The ACS will also take author generated PDFs, so I assume ConTeXt/LaTeX/plain/whatever. The thing with chemical formulae is that while in-line ones are okay as text (CH2=CH2 + H2O - CH3-CH2OH), complex structures are really a pain to enter in TeX (despite many valiant efforts). So most synthetic chemists use ChemDraw. -- Joseph Wright ___ 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 : https://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___
Re: [NTG-context] When to migrate from MKII to MKIV?
For the most part, I'm content with MKII and wonder if it is really worth the effort to move to MKIV. Perhaps the sample is skewed, but after reading the mailing list I get the impression that the current experimental/beta MKIV has a number of bugs and is not particularly feature complete when compared to MKII. My current suggestion is that if you find MKII adequate for you use, do not switch now. Wait until things stablize a bit, or you need an exotic feature for which is only availble in MKIV, or you want to help with testing MKIV. My experience said that one should switch now. Luatex+mkiv was and is a big change for me . -- luigi ___ 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 : https://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___
[NTG-context] When to migrate from MKII to MKIV?
Hi all, I've been using ConTeXt for a few years and I'm curious about whether it is worth migrating to MKIV (I've just re-read the mk.pdf document). Here are the features I often use: - Postscript fonts... I have typescripts setup for the fonts I bought (full versions of Utopia, Minion, Warnock, and a few compatible sans fonts). I believe I can get these as open-type as well if needed. - Bibliography via \usemodule[bib] - Chemistry via \usemodule[chemic] - Inclusion of PDF figures using an XML Figure database, i.e. \usemodule[fig-base] - Equations (with the multiline and alignment macros) using Fourier/Utopia including the bold math modifications in the MyWay document. - Tables (tabulate, natural, linetable) The questions I have: 1) Do all of the above work in MKIV? 2) How much of a pain is it to switch to MKIV? Do I need to rework my fonts/typescripts? Will all my current environments (setups, macros and one-line definitions) work? 3) Beyond speed and better font support, does it offer anything else to me? For the most part, I'm content with MKII and wonder if it is really worth the effort to move to MKIV. Perhaps the sample is skewed, but after reading the mailing list I get the impression that the current experimental/beta MKIV has a number of bugs and is not particularly feature complete when compared to MKII. ___ 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 : https://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___
Re: [NTG-context] When to migrate from MKII to MKIV?
On Tue, 3 Feb 2009, Dave wrote: Hi all, I've been using ConTeXt for a few years and I'm curious about whether it is worth migrating to MKIV (I've just re-read the mk.pdf document). Here are the features I often use: - Postscript fonts... I have typescripts setup for the fonts I bought (full versions of Utopia, Minion, Warnock, and a few compatible sans fonts). I believe I can get these as open-type as well if needed. - Bibliography via \usemodule[bib] - Chemistry via \usemodule[chemic] - Inclusion of PDF figures using an XML Figure database, i.e. \usemodule[fig-base] - Equations (with the multiline and alignment macros) using Fourier/Utopia including the bold math modifications in the MyWay document. - Tables (tabulate, natural, linetable) The questions I have: 1) Do all of the above work in MKIV? In principle they should. Font support for latin script in MKIV is quite stable now. Writing typescripts for both postscript and opentype fonts in MKIV is much easier than in MKII. The bibliography module works fine, equation and math alignment is currently the same as in MKII. Math font support is being reworked, so using bold fonts will eventually be much easier in MKIV. I personally do not use chemic, figbases, and complicated tables, so cannot comment on those. 2) How much of a pain is it to switch to MKIV? Do I need to rework my fonts/typescripts? Will all my current environments (setups, macros and one-line definitions) work? You may need to rework your typescripts, but they are much easier in MKIV. User interface for other things have not changed. 3) Beyond speed and better font support, does it offer anything else to me? Depends on how complicated macros you write. In MKIV, you can harness a proper programming language (lua) to write macros, so if you do anything complicated, it is a big help. For the most part, I'm content with MKII and wonder if it is really worth the effort to move to MKIV. Perhaps the sample is skewed, but after reading the mailing list I get the impression that the current experimental/beta MKIV has a number of bugs and is not particularly feature complete when compared to MKII. My current suggestion is that if you find MKII adequate for you use, do not switch now. Wait until things stablize a bit, or you need an exotic feature for which is only availble in MKIV, or you want to help with testing MKIV. 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 : https://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___
Re: [NTG-context] When to migrate from MKII to MKIV?
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 9:57 PM, Dave wrote: I've been using ConTeXt for a few years and I'm curious about whether it is worth migrating to MKIV This question and an answer should be linked to from the first page of wiki. Mojca ___ 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 : https://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___
Re: [NTG-context] When to migrate from MKII to MKIV?
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Mojca Miklavec mojca.miklavec.li...@gmail.com wrote: If you neglect the bugs and problems, transition should be painless - only typescripts need to be updated, but once you do that, your documents could even work with both mkii and mkiv. I recall that it took me a good week of work in the evenings to get my regular and math typescripts to work correctly with MKII. I'm happy with the PDF output of the papers/notes, lecture notes I write for work but I will need to switch to OTF in the not-too distant future. My university has a site license for various Adobe pro fonts but they are only being distributed in OTF now. The ones I currently use were derived from manipulating a set of multiple-masters a few years ago. Btw: math is a big mess at the moment; you can expect any kind of bugs related to maths with next beta version, but you can become a beta tester :) I do physics/chemistry with a lot of equations so incomplete math support is really a deal breaker for me. I recall there being issues with some aspects of bibliography support and a lack of fonts when I last tried the Minimal package. Again, deal breakers for me so I reverted to the ConTeXt included in the 2008 version of texlive with a few bug-fixes from a more recent beta. I think it would be very helpful to most ConTeXt 'users' if there were a wiki page that spelled out the current status of MKIV exactly and listed which features of MKII work, which are buggy, and which are work in progress. Something a little more high-level than the release notes and this mailing list ;) Thank you to everyone who contribute here. I often find myself amazed at the speed at which ConTeXt develops and very much look forward to the end of font voodoo as promised by MKIV. ___ 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 : https://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___
Re: [NTG-context] When to migrate from MKII to MKIV?
I do physics/chemistry with a lot of equations so incomplete math support is really a deal breaker for me. You realize all the recent discussions on math support are concerned with *OpenType* math, right? The legacy support coming from Knuth's TeX, which is the only one you have available in Mark II, is completely mature and won't change. Arthur ___ 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 : https://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___
Re: [NTG-context] When to migrate from MKII to MKIV?
Dave wrote: I think it would be very helpful to most ConTeXt 'users' if there were a wiki page that spelled out the current status of MKIV exactly and listed which features of MKII work, which are buggy, and which are work in progress. Something a little more high-level than the release notes and this mailing list ;) well, we already have too much on our plate so someone else has to do that concerning math ... we're in the middle of a transition to new math in mkiv (much works already but some things hav to wait till luatex itself is ready for it); it will probably be useable end of this month Hans - Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl - ___ 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 : https://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___
Re: [NTG-context] When to migrate from MKII to MKIV?
On Tuesday 03 February 2009 22:34:24 Aditya Mahajan wrote: I personally do not use chemic, figbases, and complicated tables, so cannot comment on those. Chemic seems to work with apparently the same results in mkii and mkiv. I am using this with mkiv without being too demanding for the moment... This package may have a small user base, but it appears to be rather unique. In order to progress, it must not sleep but be put to use. Note, however, that I am not a chemist and so do not write very many chemical structures and formulae. The big problem for scientific writers is that publishers at very best will accept plain LaTeX. A notable exception is the American Physical Society who developed revTeX, a LaTeX package well suited to their publishing style. The American Chemical Society will accept plain LaTeX. Often, other scientific publishers as for Word! Also, we need to contribute more pages like http://wiki.contextgarden.net/Posting_on_arxiv.org Indeed, I had terrible problems submitting texts to arxiv as their system identifies the source as TeX but fails to process it. Alan ___ 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 : https://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___
