Re: Should I use EMACS?

Robin S. Socha <robin(at)franck.pc.uni-koeln.de> writes:
>[snip]
>With Word, you don't see the code. But rest assured that what you
>would see would make you want to nuke Redmond for actually taking
>money for this pathetic piece of fuvg.

Ok, to clear up any misconceptions: I would NEVER advocate using the HTML
export in Word 7 (the Internet Assistant add-in, which is indeed a piece of
fuvg, is free so at least Redmond is safe from nuclear retaliation). Word 97
simply incorporates IA with, as far as I can see, no improvements.

I should probably have specified that I use macros to stream my .doc to a
.html file, adding the appropriate tags and mapping styles from my Word
template to styles in my CSS file. (Word is programmable and extensible too,
you know.)

>[long discussion of perl readability: snipped]

Ok, you're saying it's a good tool for laying-out program source code?
Useful, but does not sway me when I'm trying to find a HTML writing tool.

>Check <http://franck.pc.uni-koeln.de/~robin/download/user.guide.ps> I
>did that one from ASCII-scratch with 3 hours. It's pretty lousy code,
>to be frank, but it looks kinda nice. It could not have been done in
>Word, trust me.

Well I couldn't see anything in that layout that I couldn't do in Word.
Format 90+ pages in three hours? Maybe. I don't do that sort of task often
enough to be sure, but it doesn't sound impossible. But it's off topic in
terms of HTML editing...

>He. Hehe. Heheheee... Check the above document and tell me if it can
>be done in Word. Or any other word processor. Mind you, it's far
>from being good. If you want to see "good", check official documents

See above.

>on a CTAN server near you. Nope, the main difference is that LaTeX
>is a text processor that is actually aware of your entire document
>instead of just single lines. It's a little like HTML (both are a
>subset of SGML, anyway) in that the author does not have to care
>about the visual formatting, because LaTeX uses external style files
>for that. Think of CSS and you're there.

Yes, I have the SGML add-in for Word so I understand what you mean by this.

>ObHTML: if you're planning to do any kind of documentation or story,
>you should definitly consider learning LaTeX (it's a very, very simple
>language if you stick to the basics - which will get you from here to
>eternity in 99% of all cases). And it can be turned into very
>effective HTML:
><http://cbl.leeds.ac.uk/nikos/tex2html/doc/latex2html/latex2html.html>
>It's like FrameFaker and WebMaker - but entirely free.

Thanks, I'll look at it. But I already have SGML tools in Word.

>This is getting heavily OT: reply-to set,
>Robin

Off topic? How can a discussion of HTML editing tools be off-topic on a list
for discussing HTML editing tools...?

No, this information has been invaluable, thanks. I'm currently evaluating
HTML editors to recommend at work and I thought Emacs might be a valid
option. Sorry, though, you haven't convinced me. I'm still leaning towards
custom Word macros for bulk writing and Notepad for adding clever stuff on a
one-off basis.


David Meadows
[ Technical Writer | Information Developer ]
DNRC Minister for Littorasy
david(at)goldenheroes.softnet.co.uk
"Imagination is like the sun. The sun has a light which is not
tangible; but which, nevertheless, may set a house on fire."
        -- Paracelsus

HWG: hwg-software mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA