On 28. November 2003 at 9:23AM +0000, Kevin Donnelly <kevin at dotmon.com> wrote:
[...] > I had a brief look at it a couple of months ago. It looks > promising, but really can't be compared with Scribus at this > stage. In particular, IIRC, it's not actually WYSIWYG - you > work with tags in an editor, and then these are rendered to > produce the output. But my memory could be playing tricks! I think the only significant non-WYSIWYG part is the text formatting. Since the text is also frame-based, the approach is not that much different from Scribus's all (or nearly all) WYSIWYG. In some ways I consider the capability to pre-tag the text a feature rather than a deficiency. If you could edit the text outside of the layout program, you could use standard text processing utils like sed or perl for speedy search and replace-like operations. Of course, you could already do the same thing with Scribus's text-based document format. What I have in mind as a wish-list feature is a simplfied Scribus text-only import format with HTML-style tags like <BOLD> </BOLD> or <FIRST_PARA> </FIRST_PARA>. As it is the Scribus document format contains details that, while important for a WYSIWYG page description, are irrelevant, even confusing to the eyes of a human editor.
