Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!intercon!amanda@intercon.uu.net
From: amanda@intercon.uu.net (Amanda Walker)
Newsgroups: comp.text
Subject: Re: WYSIWYG = DIY (=hubris)
Message-ID: <1355@intercon.UUCP>
Date: 10 Aug 89 20:54:26 GMT
References: <210927@<1989Jul28> <8800031@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <14903@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> <387@kunivv1.sci.kun.nl> <1438@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Sender: news@intercon.UUCP
Reply-To: amanda@intercon.uu.net (Amanda Walker)
Organization: InterCon Systems Corporation
Lines: 23

[I haven't been following too much of this discussion, so please accept
my apologies if this is rehashing old ground]
 
As a number of people have pointed out, so-called "style sheets" can give
"WYSIWYG" text formatting systems many of the advantages of batch-style
formatters.  Whether or not the systems cease to be WYSIWYG at this point
is an interesting question in terminology, but there's another way of
looking at the issue which I find useful.

I often draw a parallel between text formatting systems and computer
languages.  In particular, I view things like TeX or LaTeX as document
compilers, and PageMaker or Interleaf as document interpreters.  The
feedback cycle is longer for the "compiler" style system, but it's easier
to get higher quality end results.  I think that the "dual-view" systems that
people have mentioned/wished for are the right way to go in the long run, just
as I think that good incremental compilers are the way to go for computer
languages.

--
Amanda Walker
InterCon Systems Corporation
--
amanda@intercon.uu.net    |    ...!uunet!intercon!amanda