On Saturday 24 February 2007 16:15, Russell L. Harris wrote: > * tom arnall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070224 17:28]: > > On Saturday 24 February 2007 01:54, Chris Bannister wrote: > >>On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 11:45:09AM -0800, tom arnall wrote: > >>> what about a WYSIWIG which produces latex files? You rough out or > >>> do easy stuff with the wysiwig, then modify the latex files if > >>> there's stuff not easily handled by a wysiwig. > > For text-only material of the general categories "letter", "report", > or "article" (that is, material for which there exists a standard > LaTeX "class" or template), there hardly is a quicker and easier way > to "do easy stuff" than to type or paste the material into a skeleton > document, then run "latex", "dvips", and "lpr" on the document. > > I often use this approach when I wish to save a copy of material which > is poorly-formatted on a web page. By using a two-column format, I > end up with a compact and easy-to-read document. > > This approach typically is quicker and easier than using OpenOffice, > for OpenOffice requires that headers, footers, page numbers, etc., be > added manually. > > The only problem occurs if you happen to be cutting and pasting from a > document which uses escape codes such as "\201c". It is necessary to > replace these punctuation escape codes with the corresponding TeX > punctuation symbol. > > The few minutes which are required to create a suitable skeleton > document for a particular LaTeX document class constitute a one-time > investment which quickly is repaid. > > RLH
yeah, a different 'paradigm' than wysiwyg. similar maybe to command line vs. gui. i prefer command line i'face usually. Make cyberspace pretty: stamp out curly brackets and semicolons. Relax - the tests extend the compiler. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]