Stefan Seefeld wrote:
David Abrahams wrote:
on Sun Jun 24 2007, Stefan Seefeld <seefeld-AT-sympatico.ca> wrote:
David Abrahams wrote:
Which editors are these, BTW? The one I have run across is xxe (http://www.xmlmind.com/xmleditor/). But I'm mostly using (x)emacs, which has its own xml-editing modes that will happily accept any customization layer, too. Yeah, that's fine too; I use emacs. It's just not quite WYSIWYG... not that it's a problem for me.
There are (as you surely know) long discussions about the WYSIWYG paradigm, and by what that could be replaced in the context of structured documents. However, for all practical purposes, I do consider the above editor (xxe) to be WYSIWYG. People do have a choice, if they really want.
I'll likely get flamed for this, but can't help but point out... WYSIWYG text editors are a UI failure. They inadvertently put the burden on correct *visual* formatting on users overriding the more important aspect of correct *structural* formatting. So saying that documentation system X has a WYSIWYG editor Y doesn't impress me at all. People should concentrate on editors that help/enforce document structure and coherence. -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo