Peter wrote:-Well, sorry, but I was complimenting your home city at the same time.
But, though you may not realise it in
beautiful but far-away Christchurch (I was there last January), the
world is multilingual and we simply can't all communicate with
ISO-8859-1.
Sheesh, I asked you to hold the gratuitous insults and you throw me
another one!
Peter also wrote:-I'll ignore the gratuitous insult :-) and ask you to send me some such arguments. I honestly don't know any which hold a drop of water. I did the Google search which Trevor suggested, and the only relevant article on the first page was the one I named, which quoted a few arguments against WYSIWYG and comprehensively demolished them.
I guess you will say Latex, which is also free. Well, 20+ years
ago I too used this kind of batch processing (remember nroff?) to
produce formatted English text. Then I discovered WYSIWYG word
processing, and have never looked back since. I can do WYSIWYG Hebrew
word processing with OpenOffice and MS Office, and typesetting with MS
Publisher. Why should I go back to the dark ages of batch processing?
I suggest you really do read the arguments regarding systems like TeX or
LaTeX as opposed to any WYSIWYG word processor you care to name. All your
comment above shows is that you don't know what you're talking about.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.