best WP app for producing .doc documents ?
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Hugh Browton on 5 Jul 2010 12:03 On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 15:08:35 +0100, Rowland McDonnell wrote (in article <1jl5wnp.7fpgey1cebp1cN%real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid>): > Hugh Browton <useneth@**.not.uk> wrote: > >> Rowland McDonnell wrote: >> >>> I'd say that MS Word has to be classified as belonging to the set >>> described as word processors - because there are only three categories >>> to consider: >>> >>> 1) Text editor >>> >>> 2) WP >>> >>> 3) Page layout/DTP package. >>> >> >> ?4) Structured editors - that know about other types of text manipulation, >> eg >> HTML? > > The above classification scheme puts them firmly in the camp of `text > editors'. Unless I've misundestood what you're talking about. > OK. I'd have them separate because they "know" about the structure, whereas (for me) text editors "know" only about a stream of characters without any meaning. But then I think a bit more - text editors "know" about paragraphs, bolding, etc. so..... -- regards hugh hugh at clarity point uk point co (by the sea) (using Hogwasher) "The question of whether Machines Can Think... is about as relevant as the question of whether Submarines Can Swim." Edsger Dijkstra (1930-2002)
From: Woody on 5 Jul 2010 12:04 Hugh Browton <useneth@**.not.uk> wrote: > On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 15:08:35 +0100, Rowland McDonnell wrote > (in article > <1jl5wnp.7fpgey1cebp1cN%real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid>): > >> Hugh Browton <useneth@**.not.uk> wrote: >> >>> Rowland McDonnell wrote: >>> >>>> I'd say that MS Word has to be classified as belonging to the set >>>> described as word processors - because there are only three > > > > categories >>>> to consider: >>>> >>>> 1) Text editor >>>> >>>> 2) WP >>>> >>>> 3) Page layout/DTP package. >>>> >>> >>> ?4) Structured editors - that know about other types of text > > > manipulation, >>> eg >>> HTML? >> >> The above classification scheme puts them firmly in the camp of `text >> editors'. Unless I've misundestood what you're talking about. >> > > > OK. I'd have them separate because they "know" about the structure, > whereas > (for me) text editors "know" only about a stream of characters without > any > meaning. But then I think a bit more - text editors "know" about > paragraphs, > bolding, etc. so..... A text edit only knows about characters, so the only structure it knows is end of line, as that is a character. I would say the difference between a text editor and a word processor is that the latter knows about the structure. -- Woody
From: Rowland McDonnell on 5 Jul 2010 15:41 Hugh Browton <useneth@**.not.uk> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell wrote: > > > Hugh Browton <useneth@**.not.uk> wrote: > > > >> Rowland McDonnell wrote: > >> > >>> I'd say that MS Word has to be classified as belonging to the set > >>> described as word processors - because there are only three categories > >>> to consider: > >>> > >>> 1) Text editor > >>> > >>> 2) WP > >>> > >>> 3) Page layout/DTP package. > >>> > >> > >> ?4) Structured editors - that know about other types of text manipulation, > >> eg > >> HTML? > > > > The above classification scheme puts them firmly in the camp of `text > > editors'. Unless I've misundestood what you're talking about. > > OK. I'd have them separate because they "know" about the structure, whereas > (for me) text editors "know" only about a stream of characters without any > meaning. So you'd say that emacs is not a text editor, then? Structured text editors are a subset of text editors, surely? My view is this: Text editors deal with plain text - if the software's just about putting the text data into the file for the purposes of putting the text into the file rather than prettying it up with styles and layout for human reading in the way of a WP or DTP package, it's a text editor. Text editors can be sub-divided into different sorts - the small simple uncomplicated `it just lets you type the text and move around the file' sort, or the more complicated sorts such as emacs which has modes that are designed to making it easy to create structure input for `whatever' - be it a compiler or the Web or TeX or... (I was told once that housework.el has been withdrawn, so it'll be a while before I can get emacs to do the ironing - however, I still have some hope) Quite how many subdivisions of text editors you want to consider depends on the purposes of your analysis, I suppose - but they're all `the same kind of animal' in the way that a Yorkshire terrier and a great dane are both the same kind of animal. (hmm - don't like my capitalization choices there) >But then I think a bit more - text editors "know" about paragraphs, > bolding, etc. so..... That'd be `emboldening'. But if it's styled text you're dealing with, that's a WP not a text editor. Maybe a simple WP, but a WP nonetheless. My definition has `text editors' working on plain text; as soon as the text is styled in any way, it's a WP. And if it's working with styled text and structured layout and arranging it in boxes on the page with arbitrary placement and - well, never really thought about a formal definition, but you get the idea - then it's a DTP package ono. The line between WPs and DTP is blurred - I make the final decision based on whether or not the software is pants or not. If it's pants, it's a WP. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Rowland McDonnell on 5 Jul 2010 15:41 Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: [snip] > A text edit only knows about characters, so the only structure it knows > is end of line, as that is a character. I'd say no-one who'd ever met emacs could think that was the case. Structured text editors are text editors by my reckoning - just sophisticated ones. > I would say the difference between a text editor and a word processor is > that the latter knows about the structure. I'd say that the difference is that a text editor edits plain text and a WP edits styled text. emacs is definitely not a WP or a DTP package; it's a programmable plain text editor and it can `understand' any structure you care to describe to it in Lisp. MacWrite is definitely a WP - but it's got no way of dealing with structure, unlike emacs. Structure has not part to play in determining the difference between the two - if only because WPs generally have no idea of structure and emacs (for example) can `understand' any structure you can describe to it in Lisp. The graphical layout approach to DTP gives the software no idea of structure either - which isn't to say that's the only way of approaching the job. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Woody on 5 Jul 2010 15:55
On 05/07/2010 20:41, Rowland McDonnell wrote: > Woody<usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > [snip] > >> A text edit only knows about characters, so the only structure it knows >> is end of line, as that is a character. > > I'd say no-one who'd ever met emacs could think that was the case. I used emacs quite a lot before I regained my sanity back at the start of the 90s. I view it as a text editor. It can run macros and it can perform actions on the text, but it is still a text editor. > Structured text editors are text editors by my reckoning - just > sophisticated ones. What sort of thing do you mean by structured text editors? Do you mean my example of arbortext and the like (basically sgml / xml editors) or emacs (programable text editor). >> I would say the difference between a text editor and a word processor is >> that the latter knows about the structure. > > I'd say that the difference is that a text editor edits plain text and a > WP edits styled text. fair enough > emacs is definitely not a WP or a DTP package; it's a programmable plain > text editor and it can `understand' any structure you care to describe > to it in Lisp. Agreed, it is a text editor. > MacWrite is definitely a WP - but it's got no way of dealing with > structure, unlike emacs. again agreed. > Structure has not part to play in determining the difference between the > two - if only because WPs generally have no idea of structure and emacs > (for example) can `understand' any structure you can describe to it in > Lisp. > > The graphical layout approach to DTP gives the software no idea of > structure either - which isn't to say that's the only way of approaching > the job. No. But I was still referring to the other type of editor, which is the structured editor which is effectively more like a database entry than a text editor (or WP or DTP). -- Woody |