Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site glacier.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!glacier!reid
From: reid@glacier.ARPA (Brian Reid)
Newsgroups: net.text
Subject: Re: WYSIWYG
Message-ID: <2643@glacier.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 26-Dec-85 12:32:09 EST
Article-I.D.: glacier.2643
Posted: Thu Dec 26 12:32:09 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Dec-85 01:30:23 EST
References: <2592@glacier.ARPA> <11287@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <990@mako.UUCP>
Reply-To: reid@glacier.UUCP (Brian Reid)
Organization: Stanford University, Computer Systems Lab
Lines: 22

In article <990@mako.UUCP> jans@mako.UUCP (Jan Steinman) writes:
>Take, for instance, Richard Stallman's GNU emacs.  It is best known as a
>WYSIWYG text editor, however, it also has a text-manipulation language
>and...

Part of the problem is that a lot of people use different meaning for the
words. Emacs is not a WYSIWYG editor. It is a display editor. It happens to
be a programmable display editor, which is where the fuzziness comes from. I
don't think that any editor that cannot display and manipulate multiple
fonts in multiple sizes ought to be called a WYSIWYG editor for the purposes
of this discussion. I use Emacs to edit my Scribe source files because I
like the way that Emacs keeps the paragraphs on my screen justified, but
what I see on my screen bears no resemblance to what I am going to get when
I print it.

I claim, by the way, that it is an intrinsic contradiction for WYSIWYG
formatters and compiled formatters to co-exist. At least as I am arguing
them, the coexistence is a meaningless concept. If I find the energy and the
time soon I will post an explanation as to why this is so.
-- 
	Brian Reid	decwrl!glacier!reid
	Stanford	reid@SU-Glacier.ARPA