Damien Cassou-2 wrote > what I don't like about WYSIWYG word processors is that they hide the > content. I want to control my content. I want to immediately see if a > line is a section title (semantically) or if it's just bold and huge. I > want to immediately see if a section title is automatically numbered or > if the number was written manually. > ... >> And actually, the WYSIWYG approach is much closer to HTML 1.0 (in the >> sense >> that, users have to indicate *semantic* intentions like emphasis by >> selecting different fonts, versus something like HTML 4/5, where the >> actual >> intention is declared (EMPH tags, QUOTE tags, etc). > I agree that this is a very important point.
These are very valid critiques of current non-OOP, pink plane approaches, but in fact there is no inherent conflict between WYSIWYG and e.g. Pillar. If we start from our intentions, either from the list I started or your own, it's easy to see how to have it all. Yes, in a rich text editor, one doesn't know if it's just "bold and big" or a section title. But we are not talking about jerry rigging a generic editor such as Word to do something for which it was never intended. We could, as a start, and an easy bridge between the two POVs, create a Pillar WYSIWYG editor, where the only options are semantic. So the menu choice/button/whatever would be all domain related, so when you saw "big and bold", you would be confident that it was just a visual cue for a section title, which is important because visual thinking is an important process - and separate from the intellectual processing of syntax. Making a richer interface does not have to mean giving anything up. ----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Improving-the-documentation-model-tp4820814p4821107.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.