Talk:ConTeXt

An editorial review

Whoever added the 'advert' tag in march 08 -- I saw no discussion, comments, or justification. Having reviewed at least a half dozen Wikipedia articles on different incarnations of TeX, I found this article factual and brief. Therefore I removed the tag, and since put it back, because it appears that certain major negatives to this incarnation are not addressed. The ommission of which I would think is a kind of advocacy. Since I am not expert enough to add that, I think someone should before this tag is removed.

Also in its present state I can see an excessive amount of first-person sourcing and it could stand to be rewritten for sourcing better.

Xgenei (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• ConTeXt has some (significant IMHO) downsides, but you won't find any 3rd party article on that to cite. The reason is simple: the user base is simply not large enough to warrant 3rd party articles on the matter. Also, they are commercial company, so they won't publicly criticize their own product. Compare this with LaTeX3 situation, where the main developers had no trouble talking about their troubles at the TUG conference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VasileGaburici (talk • contribs) 05:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Is ConTeXt Free Software?

From Category:Free TeX software:

This is a category of articles relating to software which can be freely used, copied, studied, modified, and redistributed by everyone that obtains a copy: "free software" or "open source software". Typically, this means software which is distributed with a free software license, and whose source code is available to anyone who receives a copy of the software.

But "Comparing CONTeXT and LaTeX" by Taco Hoekwater says that discussion with Hans Hagen resulted in:

And here are some groups which are expressly forbidden to
use CONTEXT without prior written consent by PRAGMA:
1. Publishing houses.
2. Typesetting companies that intend to advertise with
   the fact that they use and/or accept CONTEXT input.
3. Typesetting companies that intend to use
   CONTEXT as their base means of production.
4. Governmental institutions.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.239.31.187 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-18T22:18:36.

• The ConTeXt License says differently. It's free. No restrictions. No referencing on the comments above. --Villagehiker (talk) 21:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• No. Free Software would mean that it can be accessed by anyone not specifically restricted by law, I believe. So this restriction would mean that it is not. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 20:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Please check your facts before spreading FUD. According to the Read Me, ConTeXt is licensed under the GPL or LPPL.--Oneiros 23:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Explain the blocked-quoted texts? -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 00:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

These are old! Did you check the URL I provided?--Oneiros 10:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Yes! ConTeXT is most definitely free software. It is distributed as part of TeXLive which is very picky about licenses being free and allowing users to change the source code. I am part of the MacTeX group, which uses TeXLive as the foundation for our TeX distribution, so I know of what I speak. I have a copy of the ConTeXt source code that came with my free download of TeXLive. It is also freely available as part of MacTeX, which I also download. Anyone can download TeXLive or MacTeX for free. ConTeXt is free. People download and use it all of the time. Also, the content of the article does not read like an ad. I am not a ConTeXt user, but do know the software, and the description is accurate. It is definitely a huge improvement over LaTeX because it's integrated structure.---Villagehiker (talk) 00:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • TeXLive is not picky about licenses at all. They openly violate the GPL, for instance by including the Gyre fonts. VasileGaburici (talk) 05:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

FUD, as ConTeXt is licensed under GPL or LPPL as explained above.--Oneiros (talk) 12:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

My statement above was not about ConTeXt. LuaTeX, which is need by ConTeXt Mk IV, is distributed under GPLv2. Typing "context", which invokes the Mk IV, does not give any info about the license of the ConTeXt macros. YMMV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VasileGaburici (talk • contribs) 21:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yes! Here is the ConTeXt License. --Villagehiker (talk) 21:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup / Copyright

Much of the text is the same as here... is that OK? Regardless, the article needs a re-write. It should read like an encyclopedia, not a brochure. TMC1221 19:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Also, there should be a section comparing ConTeXt to LaTeX. 84.190.184.223 09:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree to. We have to rewrite this article. I think the first is to separate content in sections. The same information but reformated in sections. And then, verify it (sources essentially)... it's not possible to have this article this pain! Thanks, Xan2.

Status of ConTeXt

Hi,

As I know, ConTeXt is under highly active development; a plenty of features are added and removed frequently. For example, lua is currently deeply used in the implementation of ConTeXt system, which appears to be a trend in ConTeXt community. Besides, some more advanced features, such native fonts selection mechanism (something like the feature provided by XeTeX) exists now. So, I wonder if these could be added into the article. And, therefore, the not so stable interface could also be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realwhz (talk • contribs) 17:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• I will soften the content a bit over the next few months and compare it to LaTeX. --Villagehiker (talk) 01:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

fix of image

Hi,

Anyone could fix the image in this page? It comes from http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/ConTeXt and I don't know how to show it.

Thanks a lot, Xan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xan2 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Oneiros, Xan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.235.199.101 (talk) 12:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Please remove and integrate "In a bit more details section"

Hi,

I think the section "In a bit more detail" is redundant in more parts. Please, could you put the relevant parts to the first section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xan2 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Leave advertising tag

Now "features" section is removed and that more references are put, it seems that this article is not ad article. So think we could leave ad tag. In my opinion, there is lot of rewriting to do. So I maintain other tag. What do you think?. Xan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xan2 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Translation of Polski example

One of the main tasks is to translate the Polski example in english. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xan2 (talk • contribs) 10:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Done.

More resolution in example

Can you put more resolution in output image of ConTeXt? It 's useful for curious users who want to see in more detail the output of ConTeXt. Thanks.

LaTeX comparison

A detailed comparison with LaTeX would be very useful. After looking at http://tex.loria.fr/formats/context/LaTeX2ConTeXt.pdf, it is far from clear to me what would be the real advantage of moving from LaTeX to conTeXt, especially as a mathematician (who are most probably the main users of TeX and its derivatives in any case)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.194.8.73 (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

this document it's too elder. There is no clear text of explaining the advantages and disavantages of use ConTeXt instead of LaTeX. Please, if you find it, put as a resources. My own words is that with ConTeXt you can manage more customization like in LaTeX but it's clear that there is a lot of community under LaTeX program (more than in ConTeXt).--Xan2 (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on ConTeXt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120222103946/http://foundry.supelec.fr/gf/project/contextman/scmsvn/?action=browse&path=%2Fcontext-reference%2F to http://foundry.supelec.fr/gf/project/contextman/scmsvn/?action=browse&path=%2Fcontext-reference%2F
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120222104006/http://foundry.supelec.fr/gf/project/contextman/scmsvn/?action=browse&path=%2Fcontext-reference%2FCOPYING&view=log to http://foundry.supelec.fr/gf/project/contextman/scmsvn/?action=browse&path=%2Fcontext-reference%2FCOPYING&view=log

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ConTeXt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110109090729/http://www.ctan.org/tex-archive/graphics/pgf/base/doc/generic/pgf/pgfmanual.pdf to http://www.ctan.org/tex-archive/graphics/pgf/base/doc/generic/pgf/pgfmanual.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)