🚀 go-pugleaf

>> The Mac may be 
>>wonderful for magazines and newsletters and the like, but it I find it 
>>somewhat short of 'insanely wonderful' for writing technical figures with 
>>simple figures and footnotes. Grmmpf...

	I think this is true of all WYSIWYG word processors on every
machine.  None of the WYSIWYG WP that I know of, including FrameMaker,
can come close to LaTeX and a suitable document style.  Word 4.0 doesn't
have cross references and can't automatically number lists and
headings.  The dissertation format that I have to use requires that
the last word on the page not be hyphenated.  I have to fix this by
hand before I print the final document.  FrameMaker doesn't have an
outliner and has no support for bibliographies.  Nisus relies too
heavily on macros (which are horribly slow) instead of providing
automatic formatting solutions (it also doesn't have a built-in
outliner and can't easily do bibliographies.)  Fullwrite is just plain
brain-damaged in its implementation of many of its features.

	Perhaps in ten years WYSIWYG will be where TeX and LaTeX are
today.  For now, you need to decide whether you are willing to put up
with the inadequacies of WYSIWYG WP's in return for convenience, or to
use TeX and LaTeX for their advanced features and cope with the
amazingly complex code required for things that can be done without
effort in a good WYSIWYG WP.  (For example, to convert a LaTeX
document to double space, you have to develop or find a whole new
document style.)


	---Todd

--
Todd R. Johnson
tj@cis.ohio-state.edu
Laboratory for AI Research
The Ohio State University