I strongly believe that the WYSIWYG editing route is a fundamentally worse approach for documentation (and textbooks) than text-based formatting such as Pillar, Markdown and Asciidoc.
Specifically, it will result in less community contribution, and it will make distributed version control of documents much harder.
That said, I will support whatever documentation format or tech stack that the community adapts. Any documentation is better than none, regardless of the underlying details. (Though I will always advocate for text-based formats).
Instead of going the route that you propose (which essentially attempts to Word or Google Docs in-image), I think we should:
* Extend Pillar. With a few more features, it can be on par with Markdown and Asciidoc, and then eventually surpass it (and have nice Pharo-specific features like detection and unit-testing of Pharo code blocks, etc).
Side-by-side instant preview makes it possible to have the best of both worlds, text-based markup and WYSIWYG, without the typical WYSIWYG drawbacks (of making distributed version control difficult, first and foremost).
I will attempt to explain my reasoning, both for text-based markup, and against heavier WYSIWYG approaches.
1) With documentation (and textbooks), the number one goal and number one virtue is: make it easy for people to contibute. This means two things -- the simplicity of the format (this is where LaTeX fails), and the ease of distributed version control (merging, pull requests, reviews and commentary on contributions).
Look at the explosion in community-generated documentation and content (READMEs on repos, the entirety of Wikipedia) that has resulted from *making it easy for people to contribute and edit collaboratively*.
2) Version control, especially with more than one or two collaborators, is a *nightmare* with WYSIWYG tools. Look at what the state of the art is, at what Microsoft's Word and Google's Docs have been able to accomplish, in terms of revision control.
Despite unimaginable amounts of person-hours of development put into it, it's pretty much unusable (I speak from extensive personal experience, both from collaborating on technical and business documents using Word and Docs, and from seeing my wife and her friends (who are professional authors) struggle with Word's revision control systems while working with their publishers).
We are not Microsoft or Google. We are not going to solve the WYSIWYG source control / version control problem better than they are. We need to focus where we spend our efforts. In contrast, text-based markup version control is a solved problem.
3) The convenience of WYSIWYG can be provided with side-by-side instant preview (again, see PillarHub and the numerous WYSIWYG instant-previews in Markdown editors).
4) The ability to render source text-based markup into multiple formats (PDF, HTML, etc), is *essential*. Going from WYSIWYG to HTML is impossible (all attempts to do so, by Microsoft, Adobe, etc, have utterly failed). Whereas going from text-based to print/PDF is very doable (see LaTeX, the entirety of HTML ecosystem, Pillar, etc).
This is a serious problem that FrameMaker never had to solve.
5) Text-based markup is not primitive. You mention a comparison to HTML 1.0. This is apt, but in the opposite direction than you intend. 1.0 may have been primitive. But it has evolved into HTML 5, which not only has many semantics level content features, but is expressive enough that pretty much all UIs are moving to it (operating systems, desktop app suites, mobile devices, etc).
Pillar may be in a primitive state right now, but it already has some decent semantics-level capability, and can have a lot more with considerably less effort than it would take to evolve WYSIWYG tools.
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).
6) You mention the two standards in document writing (Word and LaTeX), and the drawbacks to each. I completely agree there. There is a third option, however, on which the world of open-source community technical writing is standardizing. And it involves text-based markup languages:
* Pillar (that's us).
7) Text-based markup formats (aside from LaTeX) actually possess all of the desired features that you mention, that are required to write book-length technical documentations. Something like Asciidoc already possesses them, and Pillar has most of them (and can be extended to have the rest).
Let's take a look at some of them:
* High-level publishing-centered semantic abstractions. In other words, both the concept of book sections, chapters, chapter sections, paragraphs, figures, etc, as well as the ability to compose a larger document out of smaller named documents:
��- Pillar and Asciidoc have chapters, sections, paragraphs, figures and named scripts/code blocks.
- Asciidoc has the ability to do file imports (compose a larger document out of smaller docs)
* Links. Asciidoc has semantic links both within a document, and across different Asciidoc documents (references to chapters, sections, etc). Pillar has within-document links, and inter-doc links are on the roadmap.
* The ability to drop down to a more expressive markup (LaTeX or HTML). For heavier-duty features like formulas and equations, all of the simple markup languages allow the author to drop down to LaTeX and lay out formulas to their heart's content.
8) Text-based markup formats are much easier to both extend (add new semantic tags, etc) and to machine-process (parse, apply macros, etc) than WYSIWYG formats.
So, in summary:
- Text-based markup languages result in a lot more technical docs being written
- Pillar can match or beat any of the WYSIWYG editor features, with not too much time and effort investment.