From: odonnell@mpx2.lampf.lanl.gov (J. M. O'Donnell) Subject: Re: Why WYSIWYG is for IQ < 120 Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1993 15:26:00 GMT
In article <1993Aug5.231357.2966@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca>, jhenders@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca (John Henders) writes...
>ajayshah@almaak.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes:
>
>>Subject: Why We Didn't Give You WYSIWYG troff
> <deleted>
>
>document format, but for a quick one-off document for which no design
>exists, I would question the comparison. Maybe for a TeX expert, coming
>up with a new style is trivial, but for a casual user, I would doubt it.
for a one off document you don't need a new style file,
you just need a few vskips, hskips, vboxes and hboxes etc.
> Another thing I'd like to know is what do you do in TeX if you don't
>want Computer Modern, but a non-serif helvitica, or some other font? I
>certainly haven't seen many TeX distributions with multiple font sets.
TeX has recently been upgraded. TeX 3.x includes handling larger fonts
(more than 128 chars) and also includes handling scalable fonts, thus
for example it is now very is to use Adobe PostScript fonts.
> I think TeX is very good for what it was designed for, but also
>think that there is a place for a word processor as well, and implying
>that only losers and morons use them says more about the person making
>the claim.
I support TeX - I would not support that claim. I virtually always look
at the TeX layout on a screen before printing the document.
All detailed parts eg. complicated math, and positioning of figures I check
on a screen first.
>
>
>--
>John Henders GO/MU/E d* -p+ c+++ l++ t- m--- s/++ g+ w+++ -x+
John.