[rfc-i] How "modern" word processors do it
Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Sat Jun 2 01:23:33 PDT 2012
On 2012-06-01 17:54, Martin Rex wrote:
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> My point is anyway that "WYSIWYG" always hides markup and what really matters
>> is the richness or poverty of the underlying markup.
> I think that assertion is wrong and based purely on mediocre tools that
> are so brittle about the underlying markup that exposing it for editing
> would break the tools so badly that it wasn't allowed.
Unfortunately those are the tools that most people use most of
> While such a restriction may apply to certain editors (including Word),
> it is by far not universal. NRoffEdit has a dual-view UI, where you
> edit the raw source in the left pane and get a preview of the resulting
> output (WYSIWYG) in the right pane with near-instant conversion.
> But the "richer" the meta-data structure, the more CPU-intensive will
> be the preview rendering, and the harder it is to find the real information
> between the markup dreck.
> As it has been previously mentioned, perfection in design is achieved
> not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left
> to take away. (Antoine de Saint Exupery)
> I don't mind when I-D authors use a gigantic complex toolchain and spend
> 50% of their time with the toolchain (and trying to make it "even better"),
> another 30% on creating and maintaining their meta-data, and have a mere
> 20% of their resources left to spend on actual content.
> But the requirements on submission formats should not be made more
> difficult from what we have now, which allows I-D authors to spend
>> 90% of their time on authoring with a tool like NRoffEdit
> (which includes an instand spell-checker in addition to the instant
More information about the rfc-interest