Article View: comp.text
Article #5267Re: WYSIWYG vs programmed phototypsetting
From: Tim Bray
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 1988 16:05
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 1988 16:05
13 lines
1380 bytes
1380 bytes
>What do people feel are the advantages of WYSIWYG phototypsetting >(e.g. MacWrite, FRAMEMAKE) vs what I will call "programmed" >phototypesetting (e.g TeX, LaTeX)? Clearly for serious typesetting the programmed (more properly procedural) typesetting systems are more appropriate. But neither is the right answer. The right answer is to design the document using *descriptive* markup, then when you're finished, use a program to translate it into troff, TeX, or whatever works best where you are. An example of a standard for descriptive markup is SGML. The reasons for this are too long to go into here. Check out the excellent article in the Nov. '87 CACM by Coombs et al. Tim Bray, New Oxford English Dictionary Project, U. of Waterloo
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<8801@watdragon.waterloo.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!ll-xn!ames!pacbell!att!chinet!mcdchg!clyde!watmath!watdragon!watsol!tbrayReferences:
<1141@mmm.UUCP> <30299@bbn.COM>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!ll-xn!ames!pacbell!att!chinet!mcdchg!clyde!watmath!watdragon!watsol!tbray From: tbray@watsol.waterloo.edu (Tim Bray) Newsgroups: comp.text Subject: Re: WYSIWYG vs programmed phototypsetting Summary: Red herring, go with descriptive markup Keywords: WYSIWYG, TeX, LaTeX, troff, MacDRAW, SGML Message-ID: <8801@watdragon.waterloo.edu> Date: 30 Sep 88 16:05:34 GMT References: <1141@mmm.UUCP> <30299@bbn.COM> Sender: daemon@watdragon.waterloo.edu Reply-To: tbray@watsol.waterloo.edu (Tim Bray) Organization: New OED Project, U. of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 13