From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-07-01 22:02:08
Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>> on Sun Jun 24 2007, Stefan Seefeld <seefeld-AT-sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>> David Abrahams wrote:
>>>> Which editors are these, BTW?
>>> The one I have run across is xxe (http://www.xmlmind.com/xmleditor/). But
>>> I'm mostly using (x)emacs, which has its own xml-editing modes that will
>>> happily accept any customization layer, too.
>> Yeah, that's fine too; I use emacs. It's just not quite
>> WYSIWYG... not that it's a problem for me.
> There are (as you surely know) long discussions about the WYSIWYG paradigm,
> and by what that could be replaced in the context of structured documents.
> However, for all practical purposes, I do consider the above editor (xxe)
> to be WYSIWYG. People do have a choice, if they really want.
I'll likely get flamed for this, but can't help but point out... WYSIWYG
text editors are a UI failure. They inadvertently put the burden on
correct *visual* formatting on users overriding the more important
aspect of correct *structural* formatting. So saying that documentation
system X has a WYSIWYG editor Y doesn't impress me at all. People should
concentrate on editors that help/enforce document structure and coherence.
-- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk