Re: latex (was Re: Ubuntu vs. Debian (was Re: Introduction))

[tom arnall <kloro2006@gmail.com>]

On Saturday 24 February 2007 16:15, Russell L. Harris wrote:
> * tom arnall <kloro2006@gmail.com> [070224 17:28]:
> > On Saturday 24 February 2007 01:54, Chris Bannister wrote:
> >>On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 11:45:09AM -0800, tom arnall wrote:
> >>> what about a WYSIWIG which produces latex files? You rough out or
> >>> do easy stuff with the wysiwig, then modify the latex files if
> >>> there's stuff not easily handled by a wysiwig.
>
> For text-only material of the general categories "letter", "report",
> or "article" (that is, material for which there exists a standard
> LaTeX "class" or template), there hardly is a quicker and easier way
> to "do easy stuff" than to type or paste the material into a skeleton
> document, then run "latex", "dvips", and "lpr" on the document.
>
> I often use this approach when I wish to save a copy of material which
> is poorly-formatted on a web page.  By using a two-column format, I
> end up with a compact and easy-to-read document.
>
> This approach typically is quicker and easier than using OpenOffice,
> for OpenOffice requires that headers, footers, page numbers, etc., be
> added manually.
>
> The only problem occurs if you happen to be cutting and pasting from a
> document which uses escape codes such as "\201c".  It is necessary to
> replace these punctuation escape codes with the corresponding TeX
> punctuation symbol.
>
> The few minutes which are required to create a suitable skeleton
> document for a particular LaTeX document class constitute a one-time
> investment which quickly is repaid.
>
> RLH

yeah, a different 'paradigm' than wysiwyg. similar maybe to command line vs. 
gui. i prefer command line i'face usually.




Make cyberspace pretty: stamp out curly brackets and semicolons.

Relax - the tests extend the compiler.