From: gthomas@fraser.sfu.ca (Guy Thomas) Subject: Re: Want to write a word processor ? (this was tried with troff) Date: Fri, 21 May 1993 04:53:34 GMT
farrow@spot.Colorado.EDU (J. Scott Farrow) writes:
>Here's something I just saw the other day that relates to the ongoing
>conversation about a WYSIWYG TeX word processor.
>Personally, I'd like to see one, as I have no desire to climb the TeX
>"learning cliff". This article suggests that such a program isn't really
>desirable, but I thought it would be reading anyway interesting anyway.
>Scott
>--------------------
>>From: npn@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (nils-peter.nelson)
>Newsgroups: comp.text
[...]
> Instead, we capitalize on windowing
>systems (layers, mux or X) to do screen-based editing of
>batch troff in one window, with troff output in another
>window. This gives the "in-the-office" feedback authors need
>without true WYSIWYG. (Rick Beach of Xerox described this
>difference cogently in Science several years ago.) The software
>here is proof/xproof and xtv (based on xditview).
For me this is the way to go. Anyone who has a chance to
use TeXShell on the NeXT understands how several tools can
be integrated to make using a markup language easier. Even
within emacs one can do some powerful things in tex-mode.
For example you can have a segment of the text you are editing
'compile' and the output appear in a separate window. As easy
as using TeX is for me now, there is a huge learning curve.
The originator of this thread had in mind a W for W or a
WP clone, not the height of typographical sophistication.
On a general note....
The topic of basing a WYSIAYG on any markup
language, from troff through TeX to SGML, comes up quite
regularly in comp.text.tex. ( At least it did when
I read the group regularly. ) The consensus was invariably
that WISIAYG is inherently incompatible with a markup language.
The philosophy behind the two things are incompatible. A markup
language is based on the premise that formating changes in the
document are reflected by visible changes to the text. The
WYSIAYG philosophy holds that the formating of a document
is completely independent of the text of the document.
I do not want to be an evangelist for either camp at this
point, however it seems that the AT&T experiment was flawed.
To take advantage of the WYSIAYG approach to document
production the author of the text must be separated from the
formating of the text.
LaTeX effects this separation nicely in the markup arena
by insulating authors from formating details, forcing
them to concentrate on logical structure ( which is
what the exercise is about anyway, logical communication
of ideas ).