From: ewenm@ee.mu.OZ.AU (Ewen Macdonald) Subject: Re: A Word Processor for Linux Date: Sun, 8 Aug 1993 02:36:53 GMT
pn002b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Peter C. Norton) writes:
>In <1993Aug5.234522.4237@medicus.com> billf@medicus.com (Bill Foote) writes:
>>someone, I'd *much* rather use a WYSIWYG word processor, like WordPerfect
>>(well, it's close enough to WYSIWYG for me!) If I wanted to write
>Hmm... Well, lets' take this back to the original question:
>Why *can't* there be a WYSIWYG word processor for Linux...
>Here are my thoughts:
>I like WordPerfect. I think that I could get all of the features of
>WP 5.1 (don't want to touch 6 until I *know* it's bug free) by running
>Emacs, and xdvi. "Wait," you say "there's something missing there!" Well,
>you're right. What would be needed would be for someone to write a slew
>of emacs macros that you be accessible either through Control and/or Meta
>key combinations to do all of the basic conversions of word processor-like
>commands into a TeX or LaTeX format, in another buffer. I am incapable of
>doing this, but is seems plausible. Spawn Emacs in X. Have Emacs spawn
>xdvi. Keep it suspended.As someone works, depending on the terminal,
>as they underline, bold, or italicize, have WP-like outlining and
>underlining appear. In an alternate buffer, all codes would be inserted
>and whenever you want to look at your document, a keystroke would
>bring the xdvi session into the foreground, and you could view your
>document. Anyone from MIT or CMU out there? :).
I can't get comfortable with this idea sounds ok but xdvi runs like a
dog when compared to a WYSIWIG word processor (forgetting page preview
and stuff like that) also I find that it is not very clear on the screen.
Maybe I just haven't run it on the right machine but who wants a 486 66
to run a word processor?
Ewen Macdonald
| Ewen Macdonald, The University of Melbourne, |
| Department of Electrical & Electronic Engineering, |
| Photonics Research Laboratory, |
| email: ewenm@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU |