From nellardo@xxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Sun Sep 19 17:33:04 1999 X-Digest-Num: 238 Message-ID: <44114.238.1310.959273825@eGroups.com> Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 20:33:04 -0400 (EDT) From: David Brookshire Conner From: "Robert J. Chassell" > > >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/