> In my opinion, LyX *is* WYSIWYG to a significant degree. LyX content in LyX > looks very much like its PDF output. Typefaces, sizes, weights, slants, > margins all look similar to the eventual output.
but these visual elements are there to convey _meanings_ not visual appearance in resulting pdf. > For something that really, truly isn't WYSIWYG, look at old WordPerfect 5.1. > Everything's one size monofont in WordPerfect 5.1, but the printed page has > typefaces, slants, weights, sizes and the like. WordPerfect 5.1 didn't even > show graphics -- it just had a 1 character white block to represent the > graphic. Now THAT was non-WYSIWYG. but this lack of WYSIWYM was not caused by the fact that they had different vision about word processing. it simply was not easy to create WYSIWYG under MS DOS or what was the original platform. > I've never understood the "WYSIWYM" and "we are not WYSIWYG" marketing of > LyX. to me it has nothing to do with the marketing. its just clear statement of the philosophy and the direction. > Why can't just say things like the following: yes, the lines below were marketing advertisment. and on many points i can argue easily with you. moreover, once you start doing such adverts there will be zilions of angry&frustrated people on list complaining that lyx does not do WYSIWYM or DTP stuff. > I think the "we're not WYSIWYG" and "WYSIWYM" slogans are confusing to > prospective and new LyX users, and really don't make much sense. then make some better explanation so that even newbies understand. WYSIWYM really makes sense once you understand. pavel
