On 23 March 2011 06:20, Steve Litt <sl...@troubleshooters.com> wrote: > On Tuesday 22 March 2011 23:27:45 David L. Johnson wrote: >> On 03/22/2011 10:58 PM, John McCabe-Dansted wrote: > >> > 3) Not WYSIWYG. Normal users clearly expect WYSIWYG. WYSIWYG and >> > WYSIWYM don't need to be mutually exclusive. >> >> They are to an extent, since WYSIWYG really means that all the document >> contains is what you see on the screen, without additional structure >> that properly formats it for a number of different export situations. > > That's not true at all. OpenOffice, MSWord, Abiword and Kompozer are all > WYSIWYG, and all of them can be used to write styles based content that gives > structure to the document. > >>
> I think the LyX community does itself a grave disservice emphasizing this > WYSIWYG vs WYSIWYM thing. If I were going to enumerate the good things about > LyX, it would be something like this: > > * It typesets better and more consistently than its non-TeX based competitors. > * It deletes unintentional double spaces and double newlines. > * It always calculates references, TOC and indices correctly, unlike others. > * The black on tan is readable and soothing to the eyes for long workdays. > * Its simple native format invites programmatic document creation and editing. > * It's free software, which protects your documents from vendor lock-in. > * It's an incredibly fast authoring environment. > WYSIMUWE What you see is more useful whilst editing? WYSSYFWFWYSBW What you see stops you fiddling with format when you should be writing? -- Stephen
