Re: Emacs Survey: Toolbars

[Christopher Dimech]

I have used Lyx , but turned to Emacs as it was better to configure.
The WYSIWYG is good though.

> Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2020 at 6:15 PM
> From: "Jean Louis" <bugs@gnu.support>
> To: "Arthur Miller" <arthur.miller@live.com>
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Emacs Survey: Toolbars
>
> * Arthur Miller <arthur.miller@live.com> [2020-12-22 20:53]:
> > Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> >
> > >> Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2020 11:03:04 +0000
> > >> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> > >> From: Gregory Heytings via "Emacs development discussions." 
> > >> <emacs-devel@gnu.org>
> > >>
> > >> > I've been trying for more than 10 years to urge people to work toward
> > >> > giving Emacs the document capabilities of a word processor, but I have
> > >> > not convinced people to do this work.
> > >> What do you mean by this?  I'm probably biased, but I don't see what
> > >> important "capability of a word processor" is lacking in Emacs.
> >
> > Personally I think Emacs is half-wysiwyg, or more then half by now.
>
> I can print into PDF or Postscript and will get a different font then
> on the screen. Good for me as I am fine with my printing, yet it does
> not reach What You See Is What You Get paradigm. If I would record
> screenshot, that would be only case to get what I see.
>
> In the Org mode there is Title and Author keywords, so that is far far
> from getting what you are seeing.
>
> If we reach what LyX document processor has reached, the paradigm of
> WYSIWYM or What You See Is What You Mean that would be already
> enough. That could be reached already now if basic fonts such as
> Courier, Roman, Sans Serif, can be mixed and they can
> be.
>
> See:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WYSIWYM
>
>
>
>
>
>