Re: WordPerfect 8.0
On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 18:49 -0600, Nate Bargmann wrote:
> * Carl Fink <carl@fink.to> [2005 Nov 18 13:24 -0600]:
> > On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 09:02:47AM -0800, Marc Shapiro wrote:
> >
> > > I won't give you any arguments. If it is the software that you like and
> > > not a need for the format, then that is your choice and your right.
> > > That's what linux is all about -- choice! I will also admit that the
> > > reveal codes option was the greatest idea since the wheel. I used it in
> > > WP 5.1 a LOT, not as much in WP8, though. I wish that other word
> > > processors would start using it, too. It seems like such an easy thing,
> > > I don't know why others have not picked it up.
> >
> > I believe it was discussed on this very list years ago for OOo. Answer:
> > they disapprove of it.
>
> In a way, that's too bad. "Getting under the hood" is always a useful
> feature. WYSIWYG is fine until what you're looking at disappears at a
> keystroke and winds up a page down or something. Editing the codes in
> WP was often the best way to get the layout just right, especially in
> WP 5.1.
>
> > Really: the OOo developers don't want people to think in terms of
> > formatting, but in terms of styles. So codes shouldn't matter to us.
>
> That sounds very much like SGML philosophy and this is precisely why a
> reveal codes functionality would be so useful in OOo which is
> essentially now an XML editor so one could work at the abstract style
> level instead of layout/formatiing (maybe I need to spend more time
> with OOo Writer as it probably already does this). I don't do much
> heavy document editing these days so I'm not going to lose any sleep
> over it. ;-)
If you want Reveal Codes, you could always edit the XML in Vim...
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson, LA USA
"It is difficult to produce a television documentary that is both
incisive and probing when every twelve minutes one is interrupted
by twelve dancing rabbits singing about toilet paper."
Rod Serling
Reply to: