On Mon, Feb 23, 2026 at 18:22 (+0100), Jean-Pierre Delange via ntg-context
wrote:
> Hi there !
> Before getting into practical matters (repository hosting, write access,
> tools, team composition, etc.), I would like to clarify what the editorial
> goal of the ANSS-CE project is meant to be. We obviously always need
> documentation, and the existing ConTeXt documentation — manuals, ConTeXt
> Garden pages, recurring discussions on the mailing list or elsewhere —
> already plays an important and lasting role as a documentary resource. At
> the same time, this documentation is closely tied to the ongoing evolution
> of ConTeXt itself, and it is not uncommon for information that was once
> relevant to become less so, or even obsolete, in a different configuration
> (the transition from Mk IV to LMTX being a typical example).
> In addition, the needs that are expressed remain very heterogeneous and
> depend strongly on concrete projects, as well as on the level of mastery of
> the tools by those looking for documentation, which often boils down to a
> simple question: /how do I achieve this goal?/
> Depending on the case, this may involve structured book composition, XML
> workflows, mathematical documents, flyers, imposed booklets, signed PDFs,
> posters, and so on.
> If I understand correctly, the idea would be to take up and extend Joaquín’s
> original ANSS work
So far, I agree!
> in order to provide a more structured form of documentation, capable both
> — of accompanying a beginner in a progressive understanding of how
> ConTeXt works, and — of helping more experienced users retrieve
> information that is currently sometimes scattered across technical
> documents and highly specialized discussions.
Both of those are laudable goals.
> Is this indeed the direction in which the project is heading?
See below.
> It seems to me, in any case, that clarifying this editorial brief — even
> if it is expected to evolve over time — would be a useful step before
> addressing questions of organization and infrastructure. In the context
> of a possible call for contributions, and even though I am currently very
> busy, I would in any case be willing to contribute French translations of
> sections that are considered stable, should this be useful to the
> project.
Given that my French is not up to technical writing, your offer to create
French translations is very helpful. (I would argue your English (at least
in this email) is excellent, so contributions in English would be welcome,
should your busyness decrease suitably!)
I have not thought through the issues of the various translations. I don't
speak Spanish, and so my contributions will be in the English translation,
even though that isn't (AIUI) the original order in which ANSS was written.
If any contributions to the English version are seen as worthwhile
contributions to other languages, it will require some competent
translators to volunteer their time.
My thoughts about the direction *I* would like to go are as follows:
"Easy" updates:
-> Fix typos / misspellings.
-> Edit/rewrite sentences or paragraphs which could benefit from
wordsmithing.
-> Remove references to things that don't exist in LMTX
(e.g., LMTX kaks on \neg and \centerdot when I try to compile ANSS)
and/or update them appropriately.
"Medium difficulty" updates:
-> There are some places in the book where JA-L mentions he wasn't
completely sure what some option did, or didn't see any effect, or ...
Filling in such information would be useful.
-> Update for ConTeXt LMTX:
-> add sections for new features
-> add sections for "best LMTX practices"
-> ...
This is one place where people with reasonably high degrees of
expertise would be highly beneficial.
"Structural" updates:
-> There are places in the book where I got bogged down reading details
that I may never need to know. Getting back to your comment about
helping both "beginners" and "experienced users", I think there are
some chapters and sections that would benefit from a division into two
sub-parts, roughly categorized as
-> beginner information / "quick-start" / basics
and
-> experienced user / expert / people who want to do "tricky" or
"unusual" things
These "structural" updates would (I imagine) require much more careful,
big-picture thinking than the other items.
I think it would be great to have a well-thought-out roadmap. However, as
much as I dislike this expression, I also don't want "perfection" to be the
enemy of "good enough". Or, put another way, I don't want the idea of
updating ANSS to suffer from "paralysis by analysis" and never go anywhere.
Having said that, if someone (or some people) has (have) a vision for this
project they want to share, I think that would be great.
Finally, here is something I want to clarify:
I would much rather be one of many contributors, as opposed to be the lone
person trying to run this show. (Just ask any of my former employers and
they will tell you I'm not management material. :-)
My first contribution is trying to take the idea of "an ANSS update" from
theory into practice, and I can do this by making some of the easy updates.
If someone else feels they have the expertise, interest and time to take
the lead on this project, I think that would be great. Otherwise, I
suppose that everyone who wants to contribute should be able to get good
report card scores in the "plays nicely with others" category.
Cheers.
Jim
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the
Wiki!
maillist : [email protected] /
https://mailman.ntg.nl/mailman3/lists/ntg-context.ntg.nl
webpage : https://www.pragma-ade.nl / https://context.aanhet.net (mirror)
archive : https://github.com/contextgarden/context
wiki : https://wiki.contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________
