[lug] looking for TeX viewer/print

[J. Wayde Allen]

On Thu, 23 Aug 2001, D. Stimits wrote:

> I'll probably try some sort of RTF format,

Well ... I've never had much luck with RTF.  It is OK, but in many ways my
feeling is that you'd be better off with pure ASCII or by simply using
your favorite word processor format.  RTF is kind of an intermediate that
as far as I can tell never really became that well accepted.

> I think LaTeX is too restrictive, and there are no
> resume formats that I know of.

That doesn't make much sense to me.  As far as I can tell LaTeX can do
anything you want it to do.  Actually my feeling is that it is more
flexible than a word processor.

> Plain TeX would be good, but what I lack is a a WYSIWYG TeX editor
> (does such a thing even exist?).

It kind of all depends on your definition of WYSIWYG.  If you edit
LaTeX/TeX in one window and run xdvi in another you've basically got a
WYSIWYG kind of operation.  

> Better yet, a WYSIWYG dvi editor (this of course would require some
> sort of related setting to display on given hardware...assuming it
> really is device independent, WYSIWYG is something of an oxymoron).

Like I've already said the WYSIWYG display for the dvi file would be
something like xdvi.  You don't really edit dvi files.  I'm not too
certain what the dvi file does for us really, but I'm sure that some
people on the list could fill us in.

> At this point I'm looking for the ability to create printed documents,
> not just electronic format.

Fundamentally you are starting to run into what I think is a classic 
problem in document processing.  Namely, the realization that there can be
more than one incarnation of a document (electronic, printed, braille,
etc.).  This is where the word processor and WYSIWYG oriented people start
to get frustrated.

The word processor design (WYSIWYG) is very limited since it makes the
assumption that you only want what amounts to a computerized
typewriter.  This is a very well accepted idea since people have been
using pencils, pens, and typewriters for a very long time.  It isn't a big
jump from traditional typewriting in the office to word processing on the
computer, and you gain the computer's ability to erase, change text,
incorporate pictures, spell check, etc..  This makes the word processor a
well understood tool, but it is very limited.

Document processing on the other hand, takes a much broader approach to
the problem.  Here, the computer gets to know a little bit about the
actual content of the document.  When you write the document you
explicitly note that the following text is the document title, that it is
divided into sections and that under each section are paragraphs,
etc..  This way the computer can make more informed searches of the
document content, pull out specified info (what is the title for
instance), and more reasonably format the document for different types of
display (CRT, postscript printer, braille reader, text to speech, etc.).

(Chris Riddoch our local linguist could probably expand on this if this
thread catches on.)

> LaTeX seems to require adopting style sheets, something like a DTD in
> SGML or XML.

Yes and no.  LaTeX I think is older than SGML, and certainly older than
XML so I'd guess that it was kind of a proof of concept model for
SGML.  Someone can correct me if I've got this wrong.

In any case, I don't think you are slavishly limited to a given style
sheet.  I'm not sure that you even have to specify a document type to have
a valid LaTeX file.  On the other hand, most of us do choose a document
type that is close to what we want, and then tweak it to fit using over
ride commands.  If that isn't sufficient, remember that LaTeX is nothing
more than a collection of TeX macros so you can include straight TeX
in a LaTeX document.

I might also add, that the use of style sheets is something that is really
powerful if you are working on a collaborative document.  This simplifies
the editors job.  He/She only needs to create the root document with
include lines for each of the subsections.  The collaborators then work on
their respective files, and there is no problem with author "A" and author
"B" text having to be reworked by the editor to get consistency in fonts,
size, and layout.  You can also use something like CVS for revision
control if you desire.

> There are no style sheets for resume format, so LaTeX is somewhat of a
> poor choice for me, unless it is just some intermediate format.

Not true, there are style sheets for resumes.  Let's see, a short search
on the web nets me the following in a few seconds:

   http://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/csuros-miklos/source/resume.cls
   http://www.rpi.edu/Computing/Consulting/Software/LaTeX/Hints/Resume.html
   http://web.mit.edu/answers/latex/
   http://web.mit.edu/answers/latex/latex_resume.html

Simply using a letter or report style would also work.  In my opinion,
since you are wanting to create multiple file format output, LaTeX
actually makes a lot of sense.

> Straight TeX, which does not enforce styles, and is simply
> (well, not really simple) a page description language (somewhat like
> PostScript), doesn't seem to have any means of composing other than
> learning the language and hacking at it with a text editor (this is how
> I create my html resumes, with nedit or vi).

LaTeX is as really just a set of TeX macros.  You can't have LaTeX without
TeX.  Yes, composing in LaTeX is much like composing in html.  However, I
don't think comparing TeX to postscript is a particularly good analogy.

> Unfortunately, I'm not enough of a whiz with TeX or PS to write a
> WYSIWYG editor (it'd be awesome if ghostview was interactive and could
> be used to compose as well as view).

You have to remember, with a document processing system the concept of
"What You See is What You Get" is kind of vague.  Do you mean WYSIWYG as an
html document, or on a CRT, or on a braille reader, or in a text to voice
converter, or ...?  If that is what you are looking for, then you really
want a word processor (MSWord, WordPerfect, StarOffice, ApplixWord, etc.).  
LyX is kind of what you are asking for, but it isn't strictly WYSIWYG.  
The term they use is "What You See is What You Mean" (WYSIWYM).  This is
more in line with the underlying philosophy of the document processing
system as opposed to the word processor.

Finally, I guess I argue that you don't want a WYSIWYG interface for these
programs.  What you see now with the use of word processors are people
putting a significant amount of effort into how the document looks.  What
font type, what type size, should it be one or two column, does the
picture look right here or should it be moved a bit to the left or right,
etc..  What tends to get forgotten if the value of the actual
content.  One of the claims that the LaTeX system makes, and I have to
agree with it, is that you don't have to worry about what the document
looks like.  It will be formated according to your style file, if you use
one, and will therefore be consistent and follow correct, time honored
typesetting rules.  You only have to create good, solid, real content -
very cool!  For once, you actually get substance rather than form.

- Wayde
  (wallen at lug.boulder.co.us)