Re[4]: Re. WYSIWYG vs. tags

Subject: Re[4]: Re. WYSIWYG vs. tags
From: powen -at- MAIL -dot- LMI -dot- ORG
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 1995 08:17:02 EST

Pat Madea asked, in response to my statement that Word has no tags, if
this was true?

I misspoke when I said Word has no tags. There are tags, but they're
embedded in the text. The user doesn't see the tags, and usually
merely blocking and picking the format you want will override any
other embedded formatting. The only conflicts I've found is the
occasional layering of character styles on top of paragraph styles
that contain other character formatting in them. However, this is
rarely a problem and can always (in my experience) be overcome with
manual formatting.

Again, IMONSHO, WYSIWYG programs such as Word and Ami Pro present much
fewer problems because the codes are embedded and cannot be
accidentally deleted. The DOS WP version, while cumbersome, was very
reliable. The WP developers seem to have dropped the ball when Windows
came along and didn't redesign the software for a Windows environment.
Instead, they seem to have added a whole bunch of Band-Aids to the DOS
program. I'm no techie, but that's my impression. That would explain
why WP for Windows, fully loaded, takes up 35 MB, while Word takes up
25 MB. It might also account for WP's dreadfully slow processing, its
requirement for more than 8 MB of RAM to run smoothly, and its
penchant for blowing up. I've got 16 MB of RAM on my 486/66, with
plenty of space on my hard drive, and WP still blows up on a regular
basis, particularly when I try to format large chunks of text without
going in and manually removing every tag I don't want.

Pam Owen
Nighthawk Communications
Reston, VA
Nighthawk1 -at- aol -dot- com, or powen -at- lmi -dot- org

Previous by Author: Re[2]: what do you call it when your comput
Next by Author: Re[2]: WWW PUBLISHING
Previous by Thread: Re: Re[2]: Re. WYSIWYG vs. tags
Next by Thread: Re: Re[2]: Re. WYSIWYG vs. tags

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads