Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!wuarchive!swbatl!texbell!uhnix1!sugar!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: a word-processor for UNIX
Message-ID: <5267@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 26 Jul 89 14:10:09 GMT
References: <20306@adm.BRL.MIL> <26558@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <1555@garcon.cso.uiuc.edu>
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Lines: 19

In article <1555@garcon.cso.uiuc.edu>, mcclaren@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Tim McClarren) writes:
> I mean that you are essentially getting on the printed page whatever keys
> you hit on the keyboard), they are much more comfortable with.  And, perhaps
> my eye isn't trained enough, but I can't see much difference in the end
> product.  

I can. The big giveaway that a book has been typeset with a page-layout
program or a word processor rather than with a text processor is sneaky
inconsistancy. Footnotes that don't quite look the same from chapter to
chapter. Occasional changes in layout. Lists that aren't always indented
the same amount. Figure titles centered in one place and left-aligned in
another. With a WYSIWYG program the *user* is responsible for making sure
all the bits look the same. With a text processor that boring job is left
to the computer. There are usually *some* presets, but they're limited.
-- 
Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation.
Business: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. | "...helping make the world
Personal: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com.   `-_-' |  a quote-free zone..."
Quote: Have you hugged your wolf today?  'U`  |    -- hjm@cernvax.cern.ch