Re: Why WYSIWYG for XML???

[Bruce Byfield <bbyfield -at- axionet -dot- com>]

Quoting Bill Lawrence <scribe -at- matrixplus -dot- com>:

> Don't get me wrong, if I'm working on a marketing piece or anything that
> has a complex layout and only one output medium, I'll grab Quark or
> something similar for that.  But why is everyone so insistent on WYSIWYG
> for technical documents? 

Probably because that's the model they're used to. The average writer isn't 
much interested in learning a new way of working, much less thinking. He or she 
simply wants to get the job done. The output isn't of much interest.

My own personal preference is for a non-WYSIWYG editor for markup languages: 
one that inserts the tags, but whose only view is the text itself. The reason I 
like this kind of editor isn't so much for the speed as because of the fact 
that it reduces typos. Also, it produces very clean code. Bluefish on Linux is 
one example of this kind of editor; it's a basic tool for me.

-- 
Bruce Byfield bbyfield -at- axionet -dot- com 604-421.7177

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

SEE THE ALL NEW ROBOHELP X5 IN ACTION: RoboHelp X5 is a giant leap forward
in Help authoring technology, featuring Word 2003 support, Content 
Management, Multi-Author support, PDF and XML support and much more! http://www.macromedia.com/go/techwrldemo 

>From a single set of Word documents, create online Help and printed
documentation with ComponentOne Doc-To-Help 7 Professional, a new yearly
subscription service offering free updates and upgrades, support, and more.
http://www.doctohelp.com

---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archiver -at- techwr-l -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot-  Visit
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.