Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!uhccux!munnari.oz.au!murtoa.cs.mu.oz.au!viccol!dougcc
From: dougcc@csv.viccol.edu.au (Douglas Miller)
Newsgroups: comp.text
Subject: Document Abstraction (was: what is a word processor)
Message-ID: <946@csv.viccol.edu.au>
Date: 26 Jul 89 04:02:30 GMT
References: <20306@adm.BRL.MIL> <26558@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <18681@mimsy.UUCP> <8735@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> <1438@l.cc.purdue.edu>
Organization: Computer Services, Victoria College, Melbourne
Lines: 63

In article <1438@l.cc.purdue.edu>, cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
> In article <8735@attctc.Dallas.TX.US>, wnp@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Wolf Paul)
> writes:

> It seems clear that Mr. Paul has no understanding of the problems of 
> much of mathematical writing.

Isn't this a bit hard on Wolf?  I don't believe he made any such claim.

> I prefer to compose my papers, and even
> tests and homework assignments, at the keyboard.  For tests and homework
> assignments, even a fair WYSIaWYG is better than any batch style 
> formatting processor.

I assume your principal concern here is with the representation of
mathematics on the screen.  This is indeed a problem with conventional
text processors such a TeX or troff which rely on ASCII text for input. 
The ASCII character set does a good job (mostly) of representing text, but
it just isn't rich enough for displaying mathemetics in a readable way.

\begin{aside}

But it doesn't have to be that way.  As has been pointed out previously,
the batch processor vs WYSYWYG argument is a red herring  --- the two are
not opposites.  It is methods for enhancing document abstraction that we
should be discussing.  Let me fantacise a while:

A document is stored in a way that clearly represents its structure, rather
than any particular visual representation.  There is software that can be
used to represent the document on an output device (such as a screen or
printer) in a number of different formats, including:

  o  A format that represents the structure of the document in a fairly
     up-front way, that is optimal for an author working on the document
     (but may not be optimal for someone who is only reading it).
  o  A format optimised for reading, i.e., conventional typesetting, but
     not divided into pages.  This format would be used for the reading of
     on-line documents.  Authors may wish to change to this format
     occasionally while writing.
  o  As above, but divided into pages.  This would be used for printed
     documents.

And of course, each of these (especially the latter two) could have lots of
sub-cases, representing a variety of typesetting styles.

Clearly whether such a system is "batch" or not is a trivial implementation
detail.  Whether or not it is WYSIWYG depends on what you believe "WYG"
means.

\end{aside}

> I can assure you that an easily programmed downloadable character set,
> with the usual display sizes on a terminal, would be more valuable than
> any batch processer like TeX or, even worse, troff.

?!  In what way is a character set comparable to a text processor?

> If I need good output, I can have the secretary fix it up.

If I need good output, I run my document through LaTeX.  This is what
computers are good for --- doing the manual/menial things so that people
don't have to.  Come to think of it, I always run it through LaTeX, so I
must always get good output :-).