Sean P. DeNigris <s...@clipperadams.com> writes: > 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.
ok for me. -- Damien Cassou http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st "Success is the ability to go from one failure to another without losing enthusiasm." --Winston Churchill
