Xref: utzoo comp.text:6541 comp.text.tex:251 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!cme!cam!koontz From: koontz@cam.nist.gov (John E. Koontz X5180) Newsgroups: comp.text,comp.text.tex Subject: Re: Why learn Tex? Summary: Markup vs. WYSIWYG a red herring. Message-ID: <2719@alpha.cam.nist.gov> Date: 2 Mar 90 23:17:50 GMT References: <90059.234829GILLA@QUCDN.BITNET> <597@s3.ireq.hydro.qc.ca> Organization: National Institute of Standards & Technology, Gaithersburg, MD Lines: 76 Mark Up Systems vs. WYSI(A)WYG Arguing about the relative merits of markup vs. WYSI(A)WYG is like arguing about the relative merits of microprocessors vs. graphical interfaces. Markup implements text structure in some way; WYSI(A)WYG is a way of handling the process of entering text and mark up. All text processing systems use markup in one form or another; even the lowliest text editor inserts line terminators (with Function Key Enter!). There is no reason why a sophisticated markup system like LaTeX/TeX can't be fronted by a WYSI(A)WYG editor, and there is no reason why a WYSI(A)WYG word processor can't be underlain by a markup system as sophisticated as LaTeX/TeX. It would take a powerful system with a good GUI to pull off true WYSIWYG, though, and that's why the current best approaches to such a thing, e.g., Framemaker or Arbor Text's Publisher, run on Unix work stations. Naturally, on the character-based screen of a DOS system sans GUI there is no way that you're going to get "true" WYSIWYG. You're really working with a continuously refreshed dvi2ASCII window - call it "what you see is an iconic representation of what you'll get." In spite of its limitations, this is vastly superior to wrestling with a mixture of markup and unformatted text. I cannot conceive how seeing one's text maintained in some nice approximation of the final result could be distracting. Is it distracting to see one's code indented suitably while composing it? Is it less distracting to be continually reorganizing the text "by hand" into some readable form as you enter it? It seems, therefore, that so-called WYSIWYG is really just a friendly editing environment. Although current ideas of such an environment seem to be based on obtaining near perfect representation of the final result, while retaining access to the logical structure, it isn't clear that representational exactitude is essential. At any rate it is almost never achieved, and most people are still satisfied with the results. The real opposition between LaTeX/TeX and most "word processors" is that the former have paid special attention to detailed control of formatting (TeX) or to abstracting the formatting process in favor of the structuring process (LaTeX and SGML), i.e., to perfection of markup systems, while the latter have devoted their attention to perfecting the user interface. The ideal tool would have the advantages of both approaches! Current "WYSIWYG" word processors are indeed system specific. This is partly system specificity in the sense that a dvi2X filter is X specific, or that the keyboard of your terminal is system specific. Since the editing view is provided by something like that filter, it is naturally device dependent. Actually, most DOS word processors are amazingly flexible in terms of what hardware they will work with, because DOS is amazingly flexible as to what I/O devices it will support. This kind of system specificity is inherent in the I/O process. There is, however, a real problem in word processors with system-specificity in terms of proprietary markup systems. Each word processor uses its own, or, at least, there are not many cases of shared systems. And, of course, these proprietary systems are not as powerful as the system embedded in, e.g., LaTeX/TeX, though some of the best of them are much better than LaTeX/TeX users seem to realize; automatic numbering of logical units is here today, for example, not something vaguely hoped for. It would be nice if there were only one or two universal, non-proprietary markup systems in use, so that the difference between word processors was merely a matter of the details of the interface between the author and the markup system, or what details of the markup system were supported in the editor, etc. Maybe someday. By the way, several DOS word processors/publishers have Unix versions (or vice versa)! This is all personal opinion, and does not reflect in any way the opinions or policies of my employer.