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