root@mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US (Mark J. Bailey) (09/06/89)
I have recently come in to the privalege of having access to a QMS PS-810
PostScript laser printer. Likewise, for the first time, I can take all
those docs ad man pages from various unix packages here on the net and
format them with my C/A/T troff package and pipe the output of it through
on of the many C/A/T troff --> PostScript translator/filters also floating
around the net. It is a dandy way to add new life to an old method for
distributing documentation! :-)
I also have acquired the sources for TeX and was planning on compiling
it on our system and using the DVI --> PostScript translator that appeared
a while back in one of the sources groups. However, we are also in the
stages of getting InterLeaf for our XWindow workstations (DecStation 3100's
and VaxStation 3100) as well. Now my question...Is one better of working
with a text processing language like troff or TeX, or can one do as much
(and maybe more) using something like Interleaf? I am afraid I haven't
yet really had a chance to experience Interleaf first-hand, although I have
read about it here. But my concern is that I may be wasting my time
trying to learn troff and TeX in more detail when Interleaf can do as
good and be easier to use (possibly?).
Can anyone reading this give me an idea of the pros and cons of each
approach to laser typesetting/publishing? In particular where would
troff and/or TeX be better than Interleaf and where would it be worse
(other than its complexity)? Is there some things that troff/TeX can
do (being a language of sorts) that Interleaf cannot? Where should I
channel my efforts?
Any help would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks in advance.
Mark.
--
Mark J. Bailey "Ya'll com bak naw, ya hear!"
USMAIL: 511 Memorial Blvd., Murfreesboro, TN 37129 ___________________________
VOICE: +1 615 893 0098 | JobSoft
UUCP: ...!{ames,mit-eddie}!attctc!mjbtn!mjb | Design & Development Co.
DOMAIN: mjb@mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US | Murfreesboro, TN USAchuck@melmac.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano) (09/06/89)
In article <509@mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US> root@mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US (Mark J. Bailey) writes: >Can anyone reading this give me an idea of the pros and cons of each >approach to laser typesetting/publishing? In particular where would >troff and/or TeX be better than Interleaf and where would it be worse >(other than its complexity)? Is there some things that troff/TeX can >do (being a language of sorts) that Interleaf cannot? Where should I >channel my efforts? Here is my $0.02 worth... You would be crazy to learn a non WYSIWYG package when you are just on the verge of getting a WYSIWYG package. Troff and TeX are nothing more than arcane programming languages. If you like assembly language programming, you'll love troff or TeX. The learning curve on these things is very steep, and difficult for non-tech types, like secretaries. People will contend that there are certain things you can't do in a WYSIWYG tool that you can in troff or TeX, but I don't know that that is true anymore. TeX is excellent at equation typesetting, but the new equation editor from Frame is quite good and gives symbolic manipulation features to boot. Plus, you could always try Publisher, from ArborText, which uses TeX to set its equations. I am an unabashed Frame fan, but InterLeaf is loaded with features. Its interface leaves a lot to be desired, and it can be really expensive for the full system. I would suggest that you get demo tapes from the "big three" (Frame, InterLeaf, and Publisher) and give them a try. Each has a certain niche, and you should try to find your niche before arbitrarily picking a tool. If you go with troff or TeX, don't say I didn't warn you :-) Chuck Musciano ARPA : chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com Harris Corporation Usenet: ...!uunet!x102a!trantor!chuck PO Box 37, MS 3A/1912 AT&T : (407) 727-6131 Melbourne, FL 32902 FAX : (407) 727-{5118,5227,4004} Gee, Beaver, everything that's fun can get you in trouble. Haven't you learned that yet? --Gilbert
lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) (09/06/89)
From article <2650@trantor.harris-atd.com>, by chuck@melmac.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano): >In article <509@mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US> root@mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US (Mark J. Bailey) writes: >>... troff and/or TeX be better than Interleaf ... > >... People will contend that there are certain things you can't do in a >WYSIWYG tool that you can in troff or TeX, ... Let's see, have we discussed this before? I'm a TeX fan. Here are some things worth mentioning in favor of TeX. (1) TeX is free. (2) The source code to TeX is available, both machine readable and in book form (Knuth's _TeX: The Program_), and it is very well commented. (3) TeX code can be modified or generated by other programs (as with other batch formatters). (4) You can design or modify fonts using TeX's companion program Metafont, which is also free and also very well documented. All of these things are important to me. I've just spent a few days modifying a (free) driver program for TeX to do some special little things I needed to do. Without the source to the driver, I couldn't do that. Without Knuth's exhaustive description of dvi file format, I also couldn't do that. I just finished printing up a dictionary a couple of weeks ago that has narrow columns, which makes it important to get the hyphenations right. The dictionary contains text in English, Palauan, Latin, Spanish, and Japanese -- each language hyphenates differently. I have pre-processing programs to add the appropriate hyphenation points. Maybe I could do that using Interleaf, but I doubt it. Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
phil@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (William LeFebvre) (09/07/89)
In article <2650@trantor.harris-atd.com> chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano) writes: >In article <509@mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US> root@mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US (Mark J. Bailey) writes: >>Can anyone reading this give me an idea of the pros and cons of each >>approach to laser typesetting/publishing? In particular where would >>troff and/or TeX be better than Interleaf and where would it be worse >>(other than its complexity)?... This is a very subjective question, and one that I am sure has been debated in this forum a great deal. The answer is that there is no answer: it is a matter of taste, need, and individual circumstances. This is like asking what the pros and cons of different programming languages are (which should I use: C, Pascal, Lisp, or Prolog?) Where TeX is concerned, don't consider TeX alone---also consider LaTeX. It is in most cases much easier to use than TeX. > You would be crazy to learn a non WYSIWYG package when you are just on the >verge of getting a WYSIWYG package. Troff and TeX are nothing more than arcane >programming languages. Of course, Chuck, there are those who would not agree with that. But you knew that, didn't you? > People will contend that there are certain things you can't do in a >WYSIWYG tool that you can in troff or TeX, but I don't know that that is >true anymore. It certainly doesn't need to be true, but I believe that it still is. >TeX is excellent at equation typesetting, No, TeX is UNSURPASSED at (automatic) equation typesetting. >but the new >equation editor from Frame is quite good and gives symbolic manipulation >features to boot. That's what Macsyma is for! :-) >... >"big three" (Frame, InterLeaf, and Publisher) and give them a try. Each >has a certain niche, and you should try to find your niche before arbitrarily >picking a tool. troff and TeX have niches as well (yes, even troff has a little bit of a niche) and should not be discounted merely because there is no WYSIWYG interface for them. William LeFebvre Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Northwestern University <phil@eecs.nwu.edu>
chuck@melmac.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano) (09/07/89)
Hi Bill! In article <1128@accuvax.nwu.edu> phil@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (William LeFebvre) writes: > Chuck Musciano wrote: >> You would be crazy to learn a non WYSIWYG package when you are just on the >>verge of getting a WYSIWYG package. Troff and TeX are nothing more than arcane >>programming languages. > >Of course, Chuck, there are those who would not agree with that. >But you knew that, didn't you? I suppose you could argue "arcane" but not "programming language". I would bet that both troff and TeX are Turing-complete. As Bill says, this is a question with no answer. Your best bet is to play around with lots of things until you find what you like best. I still stand by my assertion that troff and TeX are harder to learn, though, especially for non-tech types. Chuck Musciano ARPA : chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com Harris Corporation Usenet: ...!uunet!x102a!trantor!chuck PO Box 37, MS 3A/1912 AT&T : (407) 727-6131 Melbourne, FL 32902 FAX : (407) 727-{5118,5227,4004} Gee, Beaver, everything that's fun can get you in trouble. Haven't you learned that yet? --Gilbert
thomas@gmdzi.UUCP (Thomas Gordon) (09/07/89)
From article <509@mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US>, by root@mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US (Mark J. Bailey): > [asks about the pros and cons of systems like TeX vs. systems like > Interleaf. Both WYSIWYG and progammable batch-oriented systems are very useful. The best of both worlds is an integrated system offering both: a WYSIWYG front-end to TeX, for example. Actually, I have mistated my position somewhat. Actually, another level is also helpful, if not absolutely necessary: the "logical" level of document description offerred by SGML. We currently use SoftQuad's Author/Editor quasi-WYSIWYG Macintosh editor for creating and editing documents. (It could be completely WYSIWYG and I hope SoftQuad will be improving their product.) Authr/Editor produces SGML. Then we use an SGML paser (Daphne from DFN, the German Research Net) to create TeX. ArborText's Publisher system for Suns is very similar, and offers a complete, integrated solution. However, to my knowledge Publisher is restricted to the SGML document types created by ArbotText, which defeats the main purpose of SGML. We need to create our own document types and exchange SGML documents with users of other text processing systems. Of course, this approach is quite complicated. It requires a miriad of tools (the WYSIWYG editor, an SGML parser, a translation language for mapping SGML into some formatting language, and the formatting system such as TeX). Mastering all of these tools is a job in itself. However, in organizations, where specialists can be responsible for various aspects of the process, this approach is very flexible and powerful. Authors have the ease of use of a WYSIWYG editor, but the typesetters have the complete power of TeX at their disposal. Thomas F. Gordon email: thomas@gmdzi.uucp GMD / F3 phone: (+49 2241) 14-2665 Schloss Birlinghoven D-5205 Sankt Augustin 1, FRG -- Thomas F. Gordon email: thomas@gmdzi.uucp GMD / F3 phone: (+49 2241) 14-2665 Schloss Birlinghoven D-5205 Sankt Augustin 1, FRG
rowland@hpavla.HP.COM (Fred Rowland) (09/07/89)
Here's two cents more. By all means, go with Interleaf. The command-based formatters, including Tex, [nt]roff, and a host of variants, can't compare. The biggest comfort factor with WYSIWYG is that you're not working in the dark-- you can see what you're doing as you do it. Cost doesn't seem to be a factor for you, since you have Tex and Interleaf is on its way, and that's the only reason I can think of for not using modern software. Fred Rowland Hewlett-Packard Avondale Division
phil@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (William LeFebvre) (09/07/89)
In article <2652@trantor.harris-atd.com> chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano) writes: > I suppose you could argue "arcane" but not "programming language". I >would bet that both troff and TeX are Turing-complete. Correct. I was arguing "arcane". TeX is definitely Turing equivalent and troff can be forced into it for argument's sake. Quite amusing to see things like a "towers of hanoi" solution written in TeX: it does not produce a printable document, instead it writes its solutions to the terminal & log file! The programmable nature of TeX has an advantage and a disadvantage: the disadvantage is that it is harder to learn, the advantage is that if TeX doesn't already do something for you it most likely can be programmed to do it for you (unless it's the halting problem, of course). Are any WYSIWYG systems Turing equivalent? Does everyone even know what we mean by Turing equivalent? (It means that it has at least all the functionality of a Turing machine---most easily proved by emulating a Turing machine in the language in question). As for your statement that such systems are, in general, harder to learn than WYSIWYG systems (sorry, I already deleted the exact quote): A system like LaTeX is not that hard to teach a secretary, provided that you confine yourself to producing the types of documents that LaTeX already has "styles" for. What is the most difficult in LaTeX is producing a new style. For this you need someone who is (a) proficient in LaTeX and TeX and (b) knowledgeable about what a good printed document looks like. But for any decent-sized organization, replace "LaTeX and TeX" with the document-processing-system-of-your-choice and this statement is still true! You want someone like that on staff anyway. How easy is it to make a new "form" or "style" in FrameMaker that will produce *good* looking documents? Can you easily teach a secretary how to do that? What this boils down to is this: the primary goal of a WYSIWYG system is ease of use and ease of self-instruction; the primary goal of TeX is producing the best-looking document possible. The emphases are different. But, what we have seen lately from Frame and ArborTeX is systems that try to attain both goals simultaneously. I'm ALL for that! I'll be quiet now...... William LeFebvre Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Northwestern University <phil@eecs.nwu.edu>
chuck@melmac.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano) (09/08/89)
In article <1132@accuvax.nwu.edu> phil@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (William LeFebvre) writes: >How easy is it to make a new "form" or "style" in FrameMaker >that will produce *good* looking documents? Can you easily teach a >secretary how to do that? In Frame, it is easier (I think) to create a new format because you just draw it on the screen. It was always a lot harder in troff because you have to think things like "well, I want 0.25 inch of space before the header, and the left margin should be moved over about 1.10 inch...". In Frame, you just grab the margin and move it around until it looks right. Surprisingly, our secretaries have gotten pretty good at this. I think that the WYSIWYG systems remove most of the system-dependent vagaries from the design process and let the designer doodle electronically. This is more productive than repeatedly debugging your formats with the edit-print-think loop that troff and TeX get you into. This is particularly true of strange layouts, like ad copy or newsletters. Of course, your WYSIWYG tool should have a really fluid, consistent, easy to use interface. Interleaf now has a Lisp interpreter built into it, so it is Turing- complete, too. I don't know of any such things for Frame or Publisher, although Publisher promises a macro facility with conditionals and parameters in its next version. Chuck Musciano ARPA : chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com Harris Corporation Usenet: ...!uunet!x102a!trantor!chuck PO Box 37, MS 3A/1912 AT&T : (407) 727-6131 Melbourne, FL 32902 FAX : (407) 727-{5118,5227,4004} Gee, Beaver, everything that's fun can get you in trouble. Haven't you learned that yet? --Gilbert
MARWK@levels.sait.edu.au (09/08/89)
In article <2650@trantor.harris-atd.com>, chuck@melmac.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano) writes: > In article <509@mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US> root@mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US (Mark J. Bailey) writes: >>Can anyone reading this give me an idea of the pros and cons of each >>approach to laser typesetting/publishing? In particular where would >>troff and/or TeX be better than Interleaf and where would it be worse >>(other than its complexity)? Is there some things that troff/TeX can >>do (being a language of sorts) that Interleaf cannot? Where should I >>channel my efforts? > > Here is my $0.02 worth... > > You would be crazy to learn a non WYSIWYG package when you are just on the > verge of getting a WYSIWYG package. Troff and TeX are nothing more than arcane > programming languages. If you like assembly language programming, you'll > love troff or TeX. The learning curve on these things is very steep, and > difficult for non-tech types, like secretaries. > > People will contend that there are certain things you can't do in a > WYSIWYG tool that you can in troff or TeX, but I don't know that that is > true anymore. TeX is excellent at equation typesetting, but the new > equation editor from Frame is quite good and gives symbolic manipulation > features to boot. Plus, you could always try Publisher, from ArborText, > which uses TeX to set its equations. > > I am an unabashed Frame fan, but InterLeaf is loaded with features. > Its interface leaves a lot to be desired, and it can be really expensive > for the full system. I would suggest that you get demo tapes from the > "big three" (Frame, InterLeaf, and Publisher) and give them a try. Each > has a certain niche, and you should try to find your niche before arbitrarily > picking a tool. > > If you go with troff or TeX, don't say I didn't warn you :-) > I use TRIAD Inc.'s T3 (read T-cubed) technical word processing system - I cannot imagine a better WYSIWYG system! Ray Kennington
dougcc@csv.viccol.edu.au (Douglas Miller) (09/09/89)
In article <509@mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US>, root@mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US (Mark J. Bailey) writes: > Can anyone reading this give me an idea of the pros and cons of each > approach to laser typesetting/publishing? In particular where would > troff and/or TeX be better than Interleaf and where would it be worse > (other than its complexity)? Is there some things that troff/TeX can > do (being a language of sorts) that Interleaf cannot? Where should I > channel my efforts? OK, here are my opinions (with a few facts thrown in :-). TeX and troff are typesetting languages. TeX is the more robust and powerful of the two, and produces the best typesetting of *any* typesetting software. For authoring documents, you should use LaTeX, a document stucturing system implemented in TeX. You should use TeX only for implementing LaTeX document styles. If you are doing one-off designs, like for advertisements or flyers, stick to a page layout system such as Interleaf. If you want to write documents, and have them typeset in a consistent and standard format, use LaTeX. The advantages of LaTeX over page-layout are: o Your text is formatted by LaTeX/TeX automatically. Page layout systems are based on the procedure of you formatting the text on the screen manually. o LaTeX requires you to specify the logical structure of your document, which it then formats according to a predefined document style. This helps you to write better, avoid inconsistent formating, and avoid typographical mistakes. Things are not as simple if you need to design your own document styles. Depending on how ambitious you this can be a fairly complex task that requires you to learn a lot of stuff. On the other hand, I wouldn't underestimate the amount of learning required to drive a page layout system, and note also that the extent that you can design a document style (as apposed to designing a document) is usually quite limited compared to LaTeX/TeX.
ccmiguel@uqvax.decnet.uq.oz (09/11/89)
In article <2650@trantor.harris-atd.com>, chuck@melmac.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano) writes: > I am an unabashed Frame fan, but InterLeaf is loaded with features. > Its interface leaves a lot to be desired, and it can be really expensive > for the full system. I would suggest that you get demo tapes from the > "big three" (Frame, InterLeaf, and Publisher) and give them a try. Each > has a certain niche, and you should try to find your niche before arbitrarily ^^^^^ > picking a tool. > I would be very interested if you could describe those "niches" in more detail. I like The Publisher but don't know how it measures up against Frame and Interleaf. Please? ---------------------------------------------------------- Miguel Peirano Prentice Computer Centre - University of Queensland ST LUCIA QLD 4067, AUSTRALIA - Phone +61 (07) 377-4169 - FAX +61 (07) 371-8380 ccmiguel@uqvax.decnet.uq.oz UUCP ...!seismo!munnari!uqvax.decnet.uq.oz!ccmiguel ----------------------------------------------------------
briand@tekig4.LEN.TEK.COM (Brian Diehm) (09/12/89)
>If you want to write documents, and have them typeset in a consistent and >standard format, use LaTeX. The advantages of LaTeX over page-layout are: > > o Your text is formatted by LaTeX/TeX automatically. Page layout > systems are based on the procedure of you formatting the text on the > screen manually. > > o LaTeX requires you to specify the logical structure of your document, > which it then formats according to a predefined document style. This > helps you to write better, avoid inconsistent formating, and avoid > typographical mistakes. This is quite simply wrong, and it illustrates the fact that we are really talking about a spectrum of three program types, not two. The three types are text processors (Tex, nroff), page layout (PageMaker), and publication systems, for lack of a less grandiose term. Interleaf is one of the last category. In Interleaf, if you define a document format and you pour text into it, then it will be formatted and typeset for you automatically. And PDQ too, I might add. Formatting will be consistent among all documents, unless you take steps to make exceptions. And, if your source document is in plain ASCII, you can add style tags for format. However, if you consider "page layout" to mean PageMaker, then your comment above is mostly correct, though even PageMaker can auto-layout to predefined styles. -- -Brian Diehm Tektronix, Inc. (503) 627-3437 briand@tekig4.LEN.TEK.COM P.O. Box 500, M/S 39-383 Beaverton, OR 97077 (SDA - Standard Disclaimers Apply)
chuck@melmac.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano) (09/13/89)
In article <5258@uqvax.decnet.uq.oz> ccmiguel@uqvax.decnet.uq.oz writes: >I would be very interested if you could describe those "niches" >in more detail. I like The Publisher but don't know how it measures >up against Frame and Interleaf. Please? One big niche is the corporate standard document production center. In this scenario, you have several predefined formats, and just pour text into them on a regular basis. Frame, Interleaf, and Publisher are good at this. Frame even has a tool which only allows text entry, and prevents modification of the existing format. Another niche is the "lots of different formats" person. I fall into this group. Frame excels at this. You can create and modify formats faster in Frame than in any other tool, I think. Interleaf and Publisher view format management as a systems administration function, rather than an individual function. If you are heavily into TeX, you should probably stick to Publisher, since it can understand some LaTeX documents. If CALS is important to you, look at Frame or Interleaf. Its really too early to tell, but these two are battling it out for the upper hand in managing CALS documents. Certain specialty formats, like newsletters and other "multi-flow" documents, are nearly impossible in Publisher and Interleaf, but are a snap in Frame. If you are doing newsletters, you need Frame. Some tools have non-WYSIWYG capabilities. Interleaf and Publisher use SGML, Frame uses MIF (Maker Interchange Format). This might be important for sites with only a few workstations but lots of data entry stations. Interleaf has the most complete set of drawing tools, including some nifty text effects, but it is expensive ($15,000 for the whole shebang). If you need this stuff, that's something to consider, too. Chuck Musciano ARPA : chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com Harris Corporation Usenet: ...!uunet!x102a!trantor!chuck PO Box 37, MS 3A/1912 AT&T : (407) 727-6131 Melbourne, FL 32902 FAX : (407) 727-{5118,5227,4004} Gee, Beaver, everything that's fun can get you in trouble. Haven't you learned that yet? --Gilbert
bts@sas.UUCP (Brian T. Schellenberger) (09/14/89)
The more you
- process long documents
- process documents which are basically the same in layout
but with the data changed
- produce documents from data bases or import data automatically
- need to produce different appearances from the same document
(eg, a report and a book chapter from the same text, with different
design requirement)
- have lots of numbered sections, cross-references, and floating
figure which you don't want to have to spend lots of time with
- want to do things that the designers could not possibly have
anticipated
- are comfortable with a programming approach
- detest doing the same menial operations over and over
. . . the more you want a document-processing language.
The more you
- process short documents
- care a lot about the visual appearance at the "micro" level
(eg, ad layout)
- want to spend lots of time fussing over the precise placement
of each piece so it's "just so"
- have lots of different layouts you want to do
- don't need to do things which your package won't "know about"
- have lots of graphics you want to integrate
- are comfortable with an interactive, visual approach to tasks
- detest spending hours to figure out how to accomplish a simple
task.
. . . the more want a WYSIWYG system.
The last two points are the biggest ones for most people. Unless you are
at one the extremes (doing one-page flyers or doing hundreds of books filled
with automatically generated data), you can probably get either sort of
system to do the task (especially since these two are growing into each
other); your appoach to life will be the determining factor in most cases.
--
-- Brian, the Man from Babble-on. ...!mcnc!rti!sas!bts
--
"Every jumbled pile of person has a thinking part that wonders what the part
that isn't thinking isn't thinking of" -- THEY MIGHT BE GIANTSdanny@idacom.UUCP (Danny Wilson) (09/17/89)
The discussion about Interleaf, Frame and the Publisher are just fine,
however, I think that a really exceptional publishing package is
'DOC' from Context Corp.
When comparing the document layout features against Frame, Frame
is really just a toy. Interleaf comes close, but the graphics
creation and editing capabilites of Doc are, in fact, superior.
DOC supports CALS and straight text input using SGML. However, the
most outstanding feature is the Change Control functionality.
Our Interleaf salesman tried to sell us on their equivalent
function, but it didn't hit close.
Change control allows revision control and support for 'variant'
documents. This means that within a single master document
can be all versions of a software manual (V1.0, V1.1 etc).
With only the 'active' version visible at one time.
'Variant' documents are possible which allow, for example, both a
North American (eg."Plug into a 110V socket") and a European
(eg. "Plug into the 220V mains") version of the document within
a single file. For you software guys, it is like the power of
RCS/SCCS/DSEE-like database fully integrated into your document
production system.
We use Context products in our Documentation Publishing Dept.
for producing user software manuals for our equipment. Its
power for handling many documents of large size make it
a 'perfect fit' for us.
(Our engineering department has been using Frame for almost as
long as we have been using Doc -- after a long evalution, for
serious publishing we think it really is just a toy)
**DISCLAIMER: I am not trying to sell this product - I am only
a _very_ happy user.
--
Danny Wilson
IDACOM Electronics danny@idacom.uucp
Edmonton, Alberta {att, watmath, ubc-cs}!alberta!idacom!danny
C A N A D Adougcc@csv.viccol.edu.au (Douglas Miller) (09/20/89)
In article <722@idacom.UUCP>, danny@idacom.UUCP (Danny Wilson) writes: > The discussion about Interleaf, Frame and the Publisher are just fine, > however, I think that a really exceptional publishing package is > 'DOC' from Context Corp. > 'Variant' documents are possible which allow, for example, both a > North American (eg."Plug into a 110V socket") and a European > (eg. "Plug into the 220V mains") version of the document within > a single file. As a TeX apologist, I'm naturally going to point out that I would do it like this: Plug into \ifEuropean a 110V socket \else the 220V mains \fi. > Change control allows revision control and support for 'variant' > documents. This means that within a single master document > can be all versions of a software manual (V1.0, V1.1 etc). > With only the 'active' version visible at one time. Well, my TeX source shows ALL versions SIMULTANEOUSLY, clearly an improvement over DOC (:-)?). > For you software guys, it is like the power of > RCS/SCCS/DSEE-like database fully integrated into your document > production system. "Fully integrated" doesn't necessarily sound like a good idea to me. Suppose you are developing software and its associated documentation. You would have the software in one revision control system and the documentation in another. I write my documentation in LaTeX, and because the source is plain ASCII, I can store it in the same revision control library as my source code (DEC CMS). Then I can define classes like V1.0, V1.1 etc that encompass all relevant files, whether code or documentation. CMS handles element reservation, variant lines of descent, merging of variants, element groups, generation classes (e.g. "V1.0"), reference copy libraries, review markers, element history (modification comments etc.), and generation archiving. Does DOC do all or most of this? If not, you are getting less than you should have. If it does, you might be ahead, unless you also have revision control software for your software code, in which case you're paying extra for redundant features that fragment your revision control efforts. "Different tools for different jobs".
danny@idacom.UUCP (Danny Wilson) (09/21/89)
I really don't want to get into a 'this is better than that' type of argument (i hate those :-). I agree that 'program orientated' wordprocessors have their advantages, however, in the end the user has to choose what type of system he/she wants. In article <2017@csv.viccol.edu.au>, dougcc@csv.viccol.edu.au (Douglas Miller) writes: > > Well, my TeX source shows ALL versions SIMULTANEOUSLY, clearly an > improvement over DOC (:-)?). Also possible. > CMS handles element reservation, variant lines of descent, merging of > variants, element groups, generation classes (e.g. "V1.0"), reference copy > libraries, review markers, element history (modification comments etc.), > and generation archiving. Does DOC do all or most of this? If not, you > are getting less than you should have. If it does, you might be ahead, > unless you also have revision control software for your software code, in > which case you're paying extra for redundant features that fragment your > revision control efforts. > I have studied how line orientated wordprocessors (i.e. program type: nroff, TeX etc) can be incorporated into revision control systems (rcs). It is true that conventional systems perform the above stated functions. However, Context Change Control is just more, well, integrated than that. This means that you can show/print one [or more] variants at the same time. These variants can be shaded or highlighted differently (shade, crosshatch etc) to indicate with variant they belong to. Change Control works with documents containing pictures - the graphic information can be dependent on 'version'. I realize you can do this with multi-program combination of, say, TeX, RCS/SCCS, and 'make'. However, for the non-computer expert guy there is just a little too much training overhead involved here. Our department is trying to produce customer/user software manuals and is under great pressure to do so with high throughput. I think that this solution is best for our needs and eliminates the requirement for highly skilled 'computer-type' guys to do the set up etc. I can already see the TeX guys breaking out their battle equipment to defend their holy honour ... :-( I will try to answer all [reasonable] questions that relate to the system and my experiences with it. -- Danny Wilson IDACOM Electronics danny@idacom.uucp Edmonton, Alberta {att, watmath, ubc-cs}!alberta!idacom!danny C A N A D A
ba@excelan.COM (Bob Ackerman) (09/23/89)
The comments in this series of ploys, counters, gotchas, rejoinders, sallies and general backchat have focused principally on two aspects in the production of printed material: typography and page layout. There is, however, an aspect of the production of printed material that seems generally to have been ignored, but is important to many producers of same--viz., graphic images of various kinds. Two points (or maybe metapoints) here: If I missed any pertinent articles, my apologies to the authors for not including the appropriate references. To those readers who don't have to deal with graphic images, you may want to quit reading now before you become inflamed. There are two aspects of most WYSIWYG systems that are important to users of graphic images. One is production technical; the other is administrative. On the technical side, many packages allow you to create and/or manipulate graphic images in context on the page (Interleaf, FrameMaker, Ventura Publisher, Word are the ones I am most familiar with). It is possible to create or load an image, put it in its location on a page, label its elements and see approximately (dependent on the resolution of the display device) how it will look when printed. On the administrative side, it is often easier to produce review copies of documents with live images in place. The graphic images also live with the document and are always available for maintenance. It also seems to me that the time necessary to produce a finished image on revision is less than that for pen-and-ink art. This seems especially true for art that, by its nature, is best created at one size and then reduced/enlarged. Photographic processes are slower than electronic processes, often not only because of the physics but also because not every shop can afford inhouse photographic equipment. Of course, as I'm sure every other reader is now clamoring to point out, there is a tradeoff here: Electronic images are not as crisp as pen-and-ink images, and the difference is more noticeable to the general reader than the difference between metal type and laser type. Everyone will have noticed images with lines at a shallow diagonal with a bad case of the jaggies. Some care with the creation of the images can reduce the effects, but certainly will not eliminate them. Nonetheless, for many kinds of documents and many kinds of images, electronic images are advantageous. Bob Ackerman ba@excelan.com