Re: Fwd: Re: Lojban word processor for Windows?

[David Brookshire Conner <nellardo@concentric.net>]

Robert J. Chassell writes:
 > From: "Robert J. Chassell" <bob@rattlesnake.com>
 > 
 >    >2. The typography Mark and I have been discussing is (to me, at least, 
 >    >and I imagine to Mark as well) a wholly separate issue from the text
 >    >editor. 
 > 
 > Yes, but since you can already type Chinese, Cyrillic, Ethiopic, and
 > Latin all in the same Emacs buffer, surely you can add the Tolkein
 > characters? 

Sure, but the point that I was trying to make was that typography and
orthography was orthogonal to the question of a word processor. The
functionality of the word processor should be comparable no matter
what orthography it is using (as Mule/Emacs demonstrates in
spades). And typography, well, I'm a structured markup fiend. Mixing
typography with word processing seems misguided and encourages lots of 
visually ugly documents - Microsoft products seem to be especially bad 
in this regard, as their tools for supporting styles as semantic
mark-up are fairly crippled.

Just my biases. I guess I got anal from taking a book from outline to
camera-ready form. Made me really sensitive to the different tasks at
each stage.


It would certainly be nice to have lojban as a full-scale language
supported from top to bottom, with multiple possible entry forms
(type, lookup, dictate) and renderings (latin, tengwar, spoken,
others).


 > The Emacs' multilingual extension provides all sorts of
 > tools (and the next version will remove the need for fixed width
 > fonts.)

Um, clearly you prefer GNU Emacs - the Lucid/X Emacs branch has
supported non-fixed width fonts for years :-)

Sorry, just had to take the cheap shot in the editor religious wars
:-)

Brook

---------
Go ahead, make my data!

---------
Fancy. Myth. Magic.
http://www.concentric.net/~nellardo/