Re: wyswyg editors for tex (was re: replacement for openoffice)

2007-10-09 Thread icantthinkofone
Frank Jahnke wrote: From what little experience I have with PS and *roff the idea of hacking inline embedded languages just for typesetting sounds stupid beyond belief You have to learn one of the troff macro packages. -ms is the easiest, but I agree that a wysiwyg document

Re: wyswyg editors for tex (was re: replacement for openoffice)

2007-10-09 Thread icantthinkofone
icantthinkofone wrote: Frank Jahnke wrote: From what little experience I have with PS and *roff the idea of hacking inline embedded languages just for typesetting sounds stupid beyond belief You have to learn one of the troff macro packages. -ms is the easiest, but I agree that a

Re: wyswyg editors for tex (was re: replacement for openoffice)

2007-10-09 Thread Frank Jahnke
Can you explain the difference between troff and groff. I thought groff is the more useable troff, or do I have that backwards, or is that only a fbsd replacement? troff is the old Unix utility that drove a C/A/T typesetter. That was a real liability -- not everyone has a typesetter -- so it

Re: wyswyg editors for tex (was re: replacement for openoffice)

2007-10-09 Thread Frank Jahnke
And another thing, how do you choose whether to use TeX or troff? What's the diff? They are different programs that do the same thing. A good comparison might be comparing different compilers, like C and Fortran. Not that one is more like C than the other, just that they have a different

Re: wyswyg editors for tex (was re: replacement for openoffice)

2007-10-09 Thread Aryeh Friedman
If you know neither and want to learn one well, choose TeX. That is what is used more commonly. There's nothing wrong with troff, and the support is still quite good, but all the major journals, for example, accept TeX code but not troff. It is still a good idea to know enough troff to do

Re: wyswyg editors for tex (was re: replacement for openoffice)

2007-10-09 Thread Frank Jahnke
On Wed, 2007-10-10 at 01:33 +, Aryeh Friedman wrote: If you know neither and want to learn one well, choose TeX. I think the only place *roff is still is used is for man pages. Well, that's an overstatement. I still use it, and there is quite an active community on the groff support

Re: wyswyg editors for tex (was re: replacement for openoffice)

2007-10-09 Thread icantthinkofone
Frank Jahnke wrote: On Wed, 2007-10-10 at 01:33 +, Aryeh Friedman wrote: If you know neither and want to learn one well, choose TeX. I think the only place *roff is still is used is for man pages. Well, that's an overstatement. I still use it, and there is quite an

Re: wyswyg editors for tex (was re: replacement for openoffice)

2007-10-08 Thread Frank Jahnke
From what little experience I have with PS and *roff the idea of hacking inline embedded languages just for typesetting sounds stupid beyond belief You have to learn one of the troff macro packages. -ms is the easiest, but I agree that a wysiwyg document processor is just easier for this