Do you mean like Scrivener on the Mac? What, in any case, constitutes a universal layout approach? Does one exist?
For example, I can do things with plain TeX that mighty InDesign must balk at. Yet some see TeX as yesteryear's solution because of subsequent tech advances. I hardly believe that DEK would be dogmatic about TeX being the only thing out there. Yet he, and thousands of others in the scientific communities where TeX flourishes, sees the value of maintaining a knowledge base that is predictable when it runs on a program that can pass the trip test. Lose that for the sake of innovation, and you can lose real knowledge. And what shall we say for troff, which still possesses an arcane sort of longevity? Imagine this: if you can use TeX running on some older PC and you have some remotely managed BSD setup with packet radio and EME bouncing or whatever, you can be creating documents for all the world to see even if you are out in the bush with a generator and mosquito netting. So TeX's stability has the interesting potential side effect of giving a voice to the voiceless. Our cast-off hardware becomes a window for freedom of speech and expression, as well as the free-beer philanthropy element of getting it into people's hands. If there is to be a universality to layout, part of that should also extend not just across current technologies but also have plugins that can support older technologies. That way we do not generate technological segregation. There are places where people still go outside to relieve themselves, and there are the Japanese washlets at the other extreme. But the human component remains, nonetheless. At minimum, what one needs is a cross-disciplinary approach. My work usually involves issues of finance and development, scheduling, good old editing, elements of design, and knowledge of the subject matter. All these factors directly or indirectly affect layout. Here's where I see the Mac as helpful. On the one hand, you have Aqua, while there's also X and good old terminal. Some folks think abstractly and can whack out macros like Paul Bunyan chops wood. Some think visually and need visual or modular dev tools. Some people are good at modeling situations that are dynamic and interactive, while others have the knack for getting to tried and true base issues that remain when all the noise and lights are gone. If you read Ian Barbour or Jacques Ellul, you see that identity and techne are linked and that the sciences do things differently than the humanities at a deeper level than just style manuals and the inverse relation of "obfuscated jargon" to "psycho-sociological rhetoric." I just don't see a unified typesetting engine in the works until something can easily embrace different national traditions for typesetting, type styles, design preferences, etc. In Germany, man nehmet Dr. Oetker, while in America it's doctor schmocktor, I just wanna feel good amidst an orgiastic consumer society. Think that doesn't get reflected in design choices? 'Cause it does. DEK may be a formidable computer scientist. Yet, as one of his cousins that is a friend of mine and another friend that was two years behind him in high school said, Knuth always loved things like words and music. His literary acumen reflects his tutelage in a school strongly influenced by the classical Gymnasium. He is a man of culture and taste, and he brought all his respect and research regarding longstanding, tried and true typographical traditions to his writing of TeX. Could there be new stuff? Sure. But an exploration of type, typography, layout, and design also points us to some of our basic thoughts on preferences, identity, habituation, etc. Charles On Wed, 2008-06-11 at 21:12 -0300, Maurício wrote: > Sorry to insist, but I would be really interested in approaches > that are not just great things we could add to TeX. > > For instance: would it be possible to have some kind of “layout > engine” to which text processing would be just one among other > plug-ins? I wonder what kind of information that engine should > share with plug-ins. Do you think such system is possible? Or > something else? > > Maurício > > > Maurício a écrit : > > Hi, > > > > Just because I'm curious: how could a typesetting system like TeX > > be if it was created today? I've tried google and wikipedia, and > > all I found different from TeX is a system called 'Lout', but it > > seems dead. > > > > (...) > > ___________________________________________________________________________________ > If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the > Wiki! > > maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context > webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net > archive : https://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ > wiki : http://contextgarden.net > ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki! maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net archive : https://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___________________________________________________________________________________
