[lug] looking for TeX viewer/print

[Todd Ruskell]

Thought I'd lend my 2cents to this thread.

"D. Stimits" wrote:

> "J. Wayde Allen" wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> One thing I am frustrated with by plain ascii is lack of color (this
> isn't just for resume's, but includes other printing, e.g., syntax
> highlighted source code). RTF may have some ability to work with color,
> but I suspect you are right about it just leading to frustration.
>

LaTeX can do color, with the graphics and color packages.  You can establish
colors using either cmyk or rgb color schemes.  I've never tried to print code
with color syntax highlighting, but would imagine one might be able to force
emacs/xemacs into doing this.  It might not be too easy, though.

>
> >
> > > 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.
>
> I was under the impression that LaTeX macros were there to do something
> similar to this: Take content described logically, such as a heading,
> title, or paragraph, and format it to conform to a style specification.
> Thus, a need for a detailed style specification. It sounds like LaTeX
> also has an ability to work more in a free-form way, is this correct?
> Can I work without a style specification?
>
> >
> > > 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.
>
> I would like to do things like highlight text, then set it to bold or a
> color or a specific font size. There is a certain difficulty in viewing
> on one window and then searching for the right spot in another window
> for editing. LyX is the closest I know of at the moment, and I'm not
> very good with it. Btw, I've never seen color in xdvi, does xdvi support
> color? Probably I simply haven't run into a color case.
>

I *think* it does, I can't remember.

>
> As far as this sort of scheme goes though, I like the way ghostview can
> monitor a file and auto-update each time the file is edited. Ghostview
> is very nice, it even allows color, and is a nice printing aid. If
> ghostview could allow interactive editing, rather than just display, I'd
> be incredibly thrilled (cheap thrills?).
>
> >
> > > 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.
>
> As someone mentioned, there is a need to recompile from TeX to produce
> the dvi format; the dvi is the binary form, not useful for human eyes,
> but it could be used directly by an editor. Or an interpreter would be
> nice, to allow updates to occur simultaneously with edits (this is why
> ghostview works so nicely...it has an interpreter and the postscript
> itself is not compiled to an intermediate form that would possibly take
> multiple passes). Monitoring through xdvi, and editing elsewhere, is a
> lot of work when just maintaining and altering a document (one that
> might have minor changes on a daily basis). It seems I'm going to have
> to learn to do this though. I already have some TeX references, but they
> are primarily mathematics references, and don't cover topics like color.

My favorite LaTeX book is "A Guide to LaTeX 2e, by Helmut Kopka and Patrick
Daly.  It was much more accessible than Lamport's book for me, and still
provided all the information I needed to modify style files for my dissertation.

>
> >
> > > 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.
>
> Yes, I'm hoping to do some basic editing, and have high quality output
> for printing. The document typesetting abilities go beyond what I need,
> but the solutions that don't use TeX or PostScript on Linux seem to fall
> short in a lot of ways, most often when printing. So the next step up,
> to get good printing, is a major leap beyond what I need, and nothing in
> between exists. In a way similar to how XML was designed as a simpler
> substitute to SGML, while still being convenient in ways of HTML, I wish
> there was an intermediate TeX and intermediate PostScript...designed to
> actually provide good printing control, but not designed to be a
> publishing tool with control to a ten-thousandth of an inch.
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> This is actually not too bad for many of the things I want to do (not
> all). I currently need a free form editing device that allows color and
> polished look, and then actually prints the same as it looks on the
> monitor (to some degree I consider that a "quality" issue). The second
> thing I need is a format that I can send electronically, and expect the
> other end to also be able to print a reasonable facsimile. HTML fails
> because the viewers being used (probably IE or Netscape) are
> inconsistent at printing, even when they display the same. It can come
> close though in terms of being able to send things to other people and
> at least have the display on the monitor look nice, over a variety of
> o/s (there are some things that one has to be careful with, but display
> gotchas are far fewer than print gotchas). If html tools that are in
> general use would actually print the same as they display, I'd be
> satisfied with that for now.
>

My 3-letter suggestion?  PDF.  PDF itself supports color, and one can simply
pdflatex your document.  I must confess I don't know if pdflatex fully supports
color.  It seems that pdf viewers, usually acrobat reader, are as common as
browsers.  On the linux side, you can use acrobat reader, xpdf, and even
ghostview for many files.  Once you create the pdf version, it should look the
same, displayed and printed.

>
> >
> > 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.).
>
> This is good when writing a book or thesis or other paper that will be
> processed by someone who is knowledgable in the area. It doesn't work
> very well for general information interchange to the average user. On
> the other hand, the means on Linux which work for general interchange
> with other o/s's and non-technical users don't print right. Both of them
> fail in one area. Skimming ahead, I see some URL's for resume styles,
> which might do the job, if I can take a TeX (LaTeX) document generated
> from one of these, and come up with a form that I can (a) print locally,
> and (b) exports a format other o/s non-technical users can view.
> Possibly if there is a problem with the latter exported format not
> printing correctly, I could print the document myself and send it in
> parallel with email of the electronic format. So far the best solution
> that can be used by non-technical users, and also prints the way it
> displays, seems to be Word (but then it has the reverse frustration...I
> can't seem to produce it on Linux...even app's that have an
> import/export ability don't do it correctly and fail...when it doesn't
> actually crash or refuse to import, the imported format often loses
> quality when trying to print it, it prints what is displayed).

> >
> > (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.
>
> My main interaction attempts with LaTeX have so far been through LyX,
> which probably places more constraints that pure TeX or LaTeX. I really
> wish the import menu didn't have everything except ascii text
> deactivated (the export menu doesn't even have any entries). I probably
> need to give up on LyX and look into actually learning TeX (I wonder if
> windows understands any of the TeX output formats without installing
> special software?).
>

pdflatex creates pdf files from latex source.

>
> >
> > 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.
>
> So far I haven't collaberated with anyone on my resume :)
>
> >
> > > 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:
>
> I've bookmarked these, and will try to use them. I wonder if it is
> possible to use them with LyX, does anyone know?
>
> >
> >    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.
>
> What format would you suggest which: (a) is readable by non-technical
> windows users (e.g., IE or Word can import it and the imported version
> looks like what I see from Linux...PostScript fails here), (b) prints
> correctly from default viewing tools of windows (html fails here), and
> (c) has at least some application available on Linux which will allow me
> to print it correctly (PostScript works if the PostScript output
> actually looks like the screen view) without rebooting to windows? It is
> a tall order, and I don't think there is a solution that is completely
> satisfactory.
>

I've had very good luck with pdf.

>
> >
> > > 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.
>
> I probably do want a word processor. I have Applix, but it no longer
> works with RH 7.1, even with every compat library there is (my Applix
> version is ready for the trash can). Applix and StarOffice can't be
> exchanged with windows users; even when they claim to export or import
> word, they don't do it correctly, and every export needs a reboot to win
> to see if it exported properly. I guess I need to run vmware (which
> fails on my SMP motherboards) and windows, printing and document
> exchange formats just don't mix, and it seems they must be done on a
> single application; none of the Linux apps do the job completely.
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> Any "polished" business paper (versus technical documents) requires
> attention to appearance. I need a polished look in both printed form and
> electronic form, with the expectation that if I send an electronic
> format, it might be printed. There are many people that make a decision
> to drop further consideration of a document the moment it looks sloppy,
> has spelling errors, so on...they don't have time to deal with
> frustrations of fixing someone else's carelessness, and I have no
> influence whatsoever on changing their way of thinking (nor do I have
> the power to ignore these people).
>

Agreed.  This is the power of style files.  They guarantee that all your section
headings look the same.  They format your table of contents, your indices, and
bibliographies correctly, and keep track of all the reference numbers.  You
think about these things once in a document, and then you're done.  If you don't
care for the default behaviour, it usually isn't too hard to tweak it a bit.
However, it does take some time, and a reference book you get along with, to
learn what look for and change.

>
> If windows and standard applications of all the platforms and users that
> I must communicate with all understood TeX, and had the ability to both
> view and print it, I'd snap it up in an instant and become a guru in the
> field. The strengths that are mentioned above about the ability to
> create a consistent format and enforce a style are good for professional
> documentation and academic publishing...but within the area of casual
> exchange among unskilled computer users it breaks down, and becomes a
> road block. I suspect that if someone at MS suggested creating TeX
> import and export abilities in Word, they'd be fired.
>
> I'm overly pessimistic in this area because it has been a major
> frustration that I can't do anything about. I'm tied by what is
> available to the common windows user, and by what I can print from
> linux. Even if I can ignore windows users, I can't seem to get easier
> word processing documents to print right, so I'm forced to learn TeX or
> PostScript and write code to print a nice document...I can no longer
> just do simple edits and be done, I have to manually rewrite raw
> document tags. And in the end, when I find what I need, I still need to
> reboot to win just to put in a new ink cartridge and align the ink jet
> printer, so I still can't avoid win. Major frustration.
>
> D. Stimits, stimits at idcomm.com
>
> >
> > - Wayde
> >   (wallen at lug.boulder.co.us)
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Web Page:  http://lug.boulder.co.us
> > Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug
> _______________________________________________
> Web Page:  http://lug.boulder.co.us
> Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug

--
Todd Ruskell, Ph.D.
Lecturer in Physics
Colorado School of Mines
Golden, CO 80401
303-384-2080
Fax: 303-273-3919