![]() ![]() In fact, I believe that a WYSIWYG DocBook editor would be a godsend in providing a "way out" for all of those Word authors but still applying content structure. This does not necessarily mean that input must be so sterile. Layout is handled later by a separate processor. ![]() It contains absolutely no layout information. This is precisely why things like DocBook came into being. are part of the document and mixed with section, paragraph, bibliography, etc. As long as font size information, background color, text alignment, etc. It suffers from the same ailment (although far less so) as HTML The layout is intimately linked with the content. I could also mention that TeXmacs is already used as a user interface for several CAS, that developpers are working on a XSL compatible transformation system, on a Literate Programming system, on a collaborative (Wiki-like) web publishing tool, or I could speak of the high quality and modularity of the implementation, but I think that all this stuff is not really relevant to the casual user. All the user interface and keyboard bindings can be customized (on the fly or in the startup file) in Scheme, and you can very easily (much more easily than with LaTeX) define new styles (new packages in LaTeX parlance). On the other hand, TeXmacs is absolutely WYSIWYG, since the editor screen is drawn by the typesetting system using PostScript compatible primitives.Īlso, TeXmacs is flabbergastingly extensible and customizable. They then go at great lengths to try to convince people that it is the RIGHT approach. LyX take a "What You See Is What You Mean" approach as an excuse for being unable to be truly WYSIWYG. LyX is a front end to LaTeX, TeXmacs implements its own typesetting algorithms, by reusing the best algorithms in TeX, and improving where TeX was not good enough.įor example TeXmacs has a global page breaking algorithm, and properly stacks lines with boxes which are taller than the base line height (while TeX puts too much interline space and require manual tweaking). ![]() TeXmacs is one of the most exciting pieces of open-source software I've seen in a long time.ĭo not fail to at least give it a spin if technical typesetting is at all a part of your workday. in particular ability to cut and paste between CAS output and input prompts cleanly and consistently better integration with computer algebra software. better documentation of the source since an important project like this needs all the developers it can get (David Allouche's efforts in this regard are a great start)ĥ. adoption of a more standard toolkit like GTK or QtĤ. sub-pixel anti-aliasing for LCD screensģ. say a nice GUI to the functionality of a traditional TeX package like PSTricks which uses Postscript commands to draw on top of TeX output.Ģ. integrated sketching facility based on SVG. (In particular, I'd suggest folks working on KFormula to abandon their efforts and see if they can integrate TeXmacs as KPart into KOffice !!!)Ĭongrats to Slashdot for recognizing the hardwork of the TeXmacs team to produce the 1.0 release.įuture additions to TeXmacs that I hope really come to pass (and to which I might even lend my own efforts time permitting) include:ġ. TeXmacs on the other hand is a real innovation for technical word processing, and I think deserves at least as much attention from the development and user community as the other more office-oriented suites. I think that TeXmacs provides a nice counterpoint to development efforts like OpenOffice and KWord, which appear to want to clone Microsoft Word as closely as possible. DVI output in real time, but in a separate window which is not editable (you always have to return to the TeX source code to make changes.) And Textures is not available for Linux :) TeXmacs even surpasses commerical offerings like BlueSky's Textures, which renders the. Traditional TeX never provided an easy interface for users to switch fonts, although LaTeX eventually improved the situation considerably. TeXmacs improves on traditional TeX typesetting not just in providing a real-time rendering engine but also in some more subtle ways, like how it handles various typesetting issues (including font-switching) semantically. *Both* screen and paper output from TeXmacs is based on the highly-respected Metafont font rasterization engine. Most importantly, it is truly What-You-See-Is-What-You-Get, where as Lyx is only What-You-See-Is-What-You-Mean. ![]() IMHO, TeXmacs is a superior piece of software in every regard. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |