Damien Cassou-2 wrote
what I don't like about WYSIWYG word processors is that they hide the content. I want to control my content. I want to immediately see if a line is a section title (semantically) or if it's just bold and huge. I want to immediately see if a section title is automatically numbered or if the number was written manually. ...
And actually, the WYSIWYG approach is much closer to HTML 1.0 (in the sense that, users have to indicate *semantic* intentions like emphasis by selecting different fonts, versus something like HTML 4/5, where the actual intention is declared (EMPH tags, QUOTE tags, etc). I agree that this is a very important point.
These are very valid critiques of current non-OOP, pink plane approaches, but in fact there is no inherent conflict between WYSIWYG and e.g. Pillar. If we start from our intentions, either from the list I started or your own, it's easy to see how to have it all. Yes, in a rich text editor, one doesn't know if it's just "bold and big" or a section title. But we are not talking about jerry rigging a generic editor such as Word to do something for which it was never intended. We could, as a start, and an easy bridge between the two POVs, create a Pillar WYSIWYG editor, where the only options are semantic. So the menu choice/button/whatever would be all domain related, so when you saw "big and bold", you would be confident that it was just a visual cue for a section title, which is important because visual thinking is an important process - and separate from the intellectual processing of syntax. Making a richer interface does not have to mean giving anything up. ----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Improving-the-documentation-model-tp4820814p4821107.ht... Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.