Am 12.09.2010 um 10:22 schrieb Apostolos Syropoulos: >> greatly diminished. OpenType Math is still in a very early stage in XeTeX >> and >> has so many bugs that it is not ready for production use. > > I think this is a wrong statement: OpenType Math is by itself in early stage. > Only > two-three products make use of it.
Maybe, but one of them is MS Word, and it was introduced there three years ago (and development probably started years before that). >> - Of course ConTeXt mustn't be ignored. ConTeXt Mk IV, which is based on >> LuaTeX, >> >> seems to have everything that is missing from LaTeX: a stable, coherent >> interface, a well-designed >> >> architecture that makes LaTeX-style hacking and package clashes >> unnecessary, >> XML support, >> >> micro-typography, OpenType math, and much more. > > Even if this true, why so few people use ConTeXt? IMHO, ConTeXt is more > difficult to learn and use > than LaTeX. In a final analysis, you cannot force people to use something > just > because you > think it is better. You have to convince them and so far it seems they are > not. I don't use ConTeXt myself that much, largely because of the lack of documentation and my own laziness. Unfortunately many of the documents are outdated and cover the "old" ConTeXt Mk II instead of Mk IV. Also there is peer pressure: Someone willing to use ConTeXt is largely on his/her own, without support from colleagues, because LaTeX is still ubiquitous. After all, LaTeX is good enough for most people, and the rest usually doesn't have the time to become acquainted with a very different systems. -------------------------------------------------- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
