Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
> I hope I didn't state that you are wrong, that's not my intention.
By refuting my personal opinion so emphatically even if you haven't said
the word the sentiment is clear.
> - From my personal experience LaTeX *is the tool* when it comes to
You personal experience is not *MY* personal experience.
>> o version might be nice in case I want to back out of large portions of the
>> document or refer to previous verbage I had removed and want to reconsider.
>
> and
>
>> Am I writing a book? Yes.
But does not fit the requirement of easily converted to an acceptable
format or being able to work visually with it. No, I am not counting LyX and
the like because to suggest a WYSIWYG editor for LaTeX who's stringent
proponents eschew WYSIWYG is to put oneself right back at the same level as
any other tool.
> Any solution with (Open)-office tools that tries to satisfy those two of
> your requirements will be impractical and cumbersome, as far as I know.
They're not the only requirements. I thought the words "might be nice"
was a good clue that it wasn't a high priority. Normally one states high
priority without qualifiers or with words like "is essential."
> It's not as difficult as you seem to think. (texmacs uses F5 for
> italics, so it's even one key less than OOo's ctrl-i).
Yeah, EMACS, not working for me. And as for "one less than OOo's CNTL-I"
that depends, do you cound a chord as one keystroke or two? Most people don't
count the chord for capitalization as two keystrokes. Is FIVE 8 keystrokes, 5
keystrokes or 4 keystrokes? Chording is a part of typing, as any EMACS user
is well aware. :P
--
Steve C. Lamb | But who decides what they dream?
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | And dream I do...
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature