Xref: utzoo rec.arts.sf-lovers:58598 rec.arts.fine:288 comp.editors:3073 comp.text:8303 rec.arts.books:21117 rec.arts.poems:11645 bit.listserv.literary:589 alt.prose:1002 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!convex!datri From: datri@convex.com (Anthony A. Datri) Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf-lovers,rec.arts.fine,comp.editors,comp.text,rec.arts.books,rec.arts.poems,bit.listserv.literary,alt.prose Subject: Re: What do writers want from a word processor? Message-ID: <1991Apr23.010310.19541@convex.com> Date: 23 Apr 91 01:03:10 GMT References: <1991Apr22.145525.10150@njitgw.njit.edu> Sender: newsadm@convex.com (news access account) Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx. Lines: 25 Nntp-Posting-Host: lovecraft.convex.com >Functionality: for starters, the ability to make symbolic references to >page numbers, sections, figures, heading sections, anything. Yow -- sounds like Scribe. >Consistency: MicroSoft Word used to be my favorite editor to pick on With Scribe, you can use the editor of your choice. > Instead provide a REAL macro language with the >capability to do anything the user can do, as well as stuff arb data >to the screen. When I say REAL macro language, I mean one where one >can put if/then/else statements in (vi's :map doesn't cut it). In that >way, the user can provide missing/custom facilities that you may not have >anticipated. Wow -- Scribe again. My point isn't to hype Scribe, but to point out that "WYSIWYG" isn't all that it's cracked up to be. -- -- datri@convex.com