Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!att!chinet!les
From: les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell)
Newsgroups: comp.text
Subject: Re: WYSIWYG flamage
Message-ID: <9102@chinet.chi.il.us>
Date: 28 Jul 89 23:13:35 GMT
References: <20306@adm.BRL.MIL> <26558@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Reply-To: les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell)
Organization: Chinet - Public Access Unix
Lines: 66

In article <26726@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> ked@garnet.berkeley.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth) writes:

>Maybe WP has (finally) developed a search-replace that allows you to
>replace text AND codes, but this is still an unusual feature in PeeCee
>word processors. 

There is only one point I am trying to make here.  If you haven't seen
the current crop of programs, don't judge them by earlier versions.
Things really have changed.  Not perfect yet, but what is? 

>Typically, they are extremely restrictive in what
>can go into a search and replace operation.  Closure and conditional
>replacement are still more unusual.  Moreover, you have to ~know~ what
>the underlying codes are.

WP 5.0 lets you enter the same key sequence that you would use to
generate a code (and shows the choices as you go) when you enter the
search/replace items, and shows the same thing on the screen that
you would see using the "reveal-codes" mode.  MS-Word has some very
different concepts about formatting that make it more difficult to
think in terms of "codes" but easier to use style definitions and avoid
the need to change any imbedded formatting.

>Maybe your experience is different from mine, but I am frequently asked
>by colleagues to make rough translations of documents from one format
>to another.

I used to do a lot of this also.  Lately we have only used WP and
Pagemaker (which knows about WP and some other formats).

>In contrast, compare the task of changing, for example, bold to
>italics, in an nroff/troff document, with what it takes in most PeeCee
>word processors:

Word and WP (and probably others) let you make such global changes.

>If you've used macros such as .BO or .IT, the task is even simpler.

Likewise if you use WP or Word styles.

>As further tests (based on the sort of thing I am called upon to do by
>my publishers), compare the number of strokes required by the usual
>word processor to (a) switch from footnotes to endnotes;

Trivial in MS word (<esc>FDLE<return>), difficult in WP, since both
can exist in the same document. It would probably require a macro to
find the next footnote, delete the text, create an endnote and yank
back the text.

>(b) change the >margins in an nnn (50 <= nnn <= 500) page document;
No problem unless they change all over the place - even then it is trivial
if styles are used.

>(c) properly place >footnotes that require more than 1/2 of a physical page.
No problem with WP - haven't tried it with Word, but wouldn't expect any
trouble.

>(To forestall the argument that only a hacker would appreciate
>vi/nroff, I would note that I teach modern Japanese history.)

Actually, I like vi and wish the PC programs had real regex support,
but things like redline and strikeout support are more practical
(where the codes and/or affected text can be deleted in one command).
BTW, you might like the 1500 character character set that WP 5.0 uses.

Les Mikesell