Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcvax!ukc!inmos!yatton!des
From: des@yatton.inmos.co.uk (David Shepherd)
Newsgroups: comp.text
Subject: Re: WYSIWYG = DIY (=hubris)
Message-ID: <1872@brwa.inmos.co.uk>
Date: 21 Aug 89 10:00:12 GMT
References: <210927@<1989Jul28> <8800031@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <387@kunivv1.sci.kun.nl> <1499@l.cc.purdue.edu>
Sender: news@inmos.co.uk
Reply-To: des@inmos.co.uk (David Shepherd)
Organization: INMOS Limited, Bristol, UK.
Lines: 17

In article <1499@l.cc.purdue.edu> cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>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.

With a decent dvi previewer you should be able to do all the proof checking
you would do in a WYSIWYG system before printing. 

But, you may say, you have the turn around time for the edit/TeX/preview cycle.
Using (Gnu-)Emacs in an adapted (La)TeX-mode you can quite easily select a
small section of text to independently process and preview (~10s to get screen
image) to get detailed layout right then process and preview a section
(LaTeX provides \includeonly for this) to get overall page placement right.

david shepherd
INMOS ltd