Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!iuvax!purdue!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!l.cc.purdue.edu!cik
From: cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Newsgroups: comp.text
Subject: Re: WYSIWYG = DIY (=hubris)
Summary: WYSIWYG is for writing, not typesetting.
Message-ID: <1499@l.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: 15 Aug 89 19:07:56 GMT
References: <210927@<1989Jul28> <8800031@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <387@kunivv1.sci.kun.nl>
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department
Lines: 21

In article <387@kunivv1.sci.kun.nl>, eykhout@kunivv1.sci.kun.nl (Victor Eijkhout) writes:

> Conjecture: wysiwig systems are for people who make their own
> layout, and who have decided on the definitive layout
> before they started keying in the text. This I think is a wrong
> way of working. I think I have a right to say this, because I've
> produced some 'master pieces of the printing art', and the design
> was done by a pro, and only after I had finished the text.

WYSIWYG systems are the only reasonable thing for someone writing the 
paper.  When I compose my articles, I prefer to putting the stuff on
the screen instead of on pieces of paper.  I have written papers using
TeX, and it is a real pain.

There is no reason why a WYSIWYG system cannot be augmented into a TeX-
like system.  In any case, it should produce output which can be easily
and mainly mechanically converted into a typesetting language.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet, UUCP)