2010-10-12 11:25, Philip Taylor (Webmaster, Ret'd) skrev:
In another forum, I have suggested that one way to permit this is to define an underlying (numeric) canonical representation (at the time, I was writing of CSS, but the idea is equally valid for TeX, or indeed for most other computer-related languages).
That would be living hell for anyone with dyscalculia! While an underlying representation could of course be verbal, the idea of needing a renderer is not attractive. Indeed one of the advantages of *TeX is that you can view it and work on it in a text editor. It's for a reason that I'm not using WYSIWYG! The main disadvantage with WYSIWYG is that you have to look somewhere else -- a toolbar or the like -- to see the structural information, and you can only see it for the elements enclosing the cursor. But everybody here knows that, of course! Personally I find it advantageous to have the markup based on another language than the text, since then text and markup stand out better from each other. It's harder for me to *read* LaTeX source with English text, not that I exactly enjoy reading any marked-up text/source code without color highlighting! In a way punctuation/symbol-based markup is the best of both worlds, but markdown/wiki markup only gets you so far. If there were more symbolizations than a dozen or two it would be too hard to remember and type them! /bp -------------------------------------------------- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex