>
> On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Jules Bean wrote:
> > I would quite like, personally, a LyX-like program which is a more generic
> > 'structured' document editor. Probably an XML editor, with the ability to
> > backend onto LaTeX, but also other formats. If I have time, I may have a
> > look at that problem.
>
> Don't run off and reinvent the wheel.
I am actually fully sympathetic with Jules.
The problem is not 'reinventing the wheel'. That is not necessary.
I have the feeling that most people here share more or less the same
vision of what constitutes a Good Document Processor.
The actual difference are the various ideas of how to get there.
There are
- the people who say: look, there is a trail, pave it, broaden it,
straighten it, tar it, and look: we have a highway.
and
- the people who say: come on, let's abandon the trail and build
the highway in one step.
(and of course
- the people who say: well, the trail is fine, I am contend with that.)
There are advantages and disadvantages with both approaches.
The first approach is costly and lengthy. You repeat work, you pave the
trail although you know that you'll throw it away in the end. But
every step could be seen as an improvement. You can stop anywhere in the
process and still you have gained something.
The second is better - once you get through. If you get stuck,
you lose everything.
I have to admit that I not yet convinced which one I consider the better,
although I am fairly sure that I'd take the second approach if it were
my work and I had enough resources to spend. I'd be really interested in
some 'test project': Read in an XML file, display it nicely *including math*,
export it to tex. Just to convince me that the second approach is not
*much* better than the first ;-)
Andre'
PS:
> Once Docbook is well supported we can then generalise ie. walk before we
> can run.
> Allan. (ARRae)
Well. You do not need to run once you've learned how to fly ;-)
--
Andre' Poenitz ...................... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
