From: mark@taylor.uucp (Mark A. Davis) Subject: Re: (was: Re: A Word Processor for Linux) Date: Sun, 08 Aug 1993 17:47:06 GMT
In comp.os.linux you write:
> I hate to contribute to this tread (it's probably worked it's
>way into everyone's kill file by now). Anyhow, a question:
> How many people consider Word Perfect 5.1 (no windows)
>to be WSIWYG??? I maintain that it isn't, but people seem a lot more
>friendly to it than TeX.
Wordperfect (Unix versions, of course), running on most text terminals is
a wordprocessor but not WYSIWYG. Running on a graphics capable terminal,
such as the Wyse 160, it will allow you to quickly preview the text exactly
as it will look printed using Tektronix graphics. In a way, this is
WYSIWYG because you can see exactly what you are getting (just not all the
time).
Using Unix WordPerfect under Xwindows, either on an Xterminal, or a Console,
it *IS* truely WYSIWYG. All fonts and graphics are displayed and accurate
renditions are updated constantly. There is a price in performance and
load.
Tex is not a wordprocessor, it is a layout tool. Wordperfect is both a
wordprocessor and a layout tool. WP Unix 5.1 does support kerning,
custom characters, exact relative or absolute text or graphic placement,
formula creation, and many other "layout" functions.
Unix WordPerfect 5.1 is available for Sun, HP, AIX, and others like SCO and
ISC and V.4 through COFF. COFF compatibility is still the key to running
most commercial software under a 386/486/Unix. If Linux had COFF, WordPerfect
for Unix would run. (Emulating MS-"DOS" under Unix to run MS-"DOS" WordPerfect
is a kludge at best, but better than nothing. You see, that version of WP
is not Unix and will not really know about print spoolers, multi-users,
terminals, X, etc). (WABI is another path to
running WordPerfect for MS-"windows", but it will still not be as clean).
Those wanting a Unix version of WordPerfect can ugrade an existing MS-"DOS"
version for near nothing (good upgrade policy).
>I was just wondering how easy it would be
>to write something for emacs which would emulate the ALT-F3 (reveal
>codes) on WP51. Also, it would probably be easy to bind all the
>WP keys and menus to emacs keys (there probably won't be an overlap
>problem as the WP uses mostly function keys).
I think you are pointing out the problem with trying to make emacs like
WordPerfect. You could bind many of the keys like WordPerfect and have
lots of macros act like WordPerfect but it would be no where NEAR the same
as WordPerfect in the end. It would be nice, however, for learning Emacs
quickly if you are familiar with WordPerfect.
Since it would be nearly impossible to write a complex clone of WordPerfect
(it is large and has zillions of features), it would be better to
have COFF compatibility to run the real thing **OR** write a totally different
type of wordprocessor preferable based on functions of existing tools
such as Tex (underlying layout control and document file format),
Ghostscript (optional previewing), and a font end wordprocessing layer.
The front end could be both X and ASCII to support the best of both worlds.
-- /--------------------------------------------------------------------------\ | Mark A. Davis | Lake Taylor Hospital | Norfolk, VA (804)-461-5001x431 | | Sys.Administrator| Computer Services | mark@taylor.wyvern.com .uucp | \--------------------------------------------------------------------------/-- /--------------------------------------------------------------------------\ | Mark A. Davis | Lake Taylor Hospital | Norfolk, VA (804)-461-5001x431 | | Sys.Administrator| Computer Services | mark@taylor.wyvern.com .uucp | \--------------------------------------------------------------------------/