Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!dirk@words From: dirk@words (Dirk van Nouhuys) Newsgroups: comp.text.desktop Subject: Re: WYSIWYG vs programmed phototypsetting Message-ID: <70221@sun.uucp> Date: 26 Sep 88 20:48:26 GMT Sender: news@sun.uucp Distribution: comp Lines: 27 Approved: desktop-request%plaid@sun.com Briefly, I think the WYSIWYG vs programmed phototypsetting dichotomy is not so useful. Other questions, like what kind of people are going to use it, what hardware is available, what kind of size and format you want etc. etc. should lead to a choice of a system, which may have WYSIWYGness (if that's a word) as an attribute. Currently most of the most interesting development is going on in WYSIWYG systems, because, I suppose, they are typically easier to learn for non-programmers (though Interleaf rises to a complexity that may be an exception). Hence many systems with interesting, new features are WYSIWYG, but maybe that will swing the other way some time. A case in point is Publisher from Abourtext. I think it a very good system for many purposes. It is almost WYSIWYG: you edit live on a close, schematic representation of the finished page and can easily preview that printed page. This strategy offers real gains in response and in ease of editing for a person with a little traing. It is based on TEX, and if need be you can reach through and format in TEX. ---------------------------------------- Submissions to: desktop@plaid.sun.com Administrivia to: desktop-request@plaid.sun.com UUCP: {amdahl,decwrl,hplabs}!sun!plaid!desktop{-request} Archives can be gotten from the archive-server. To get information on the archive-server, send mail to: archive-server@plaid.sun.com -or- sun!plaid!archive-server with a subject line of help