1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
|
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE book PUBLIC "-//OASIS//DTD DocBook XML V4.2//EN" "http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/xml/4.2/docbookx.dtd">
<?sdop
font_main="12,1.5,serif"
numbertitles="yes,no,no"
page_full_length="100"
page_line_width="386"
paper_size="505x665"
table_warn_overflow="overprint"
toc_sections="no"
?>
<para>
<indexterm>
<primary>T<?sdop subscript_small="no" subscript_down="16"?><subscript>E</subscript><?sdop subscript_small="yes" subscript_down="33"?>X</primary>
</indexterm>
At that time Phoenix users still had access only to line-by-line terminals, so
GCAL was not an interactive WYSIWYG word processor of the sort that appeared on
personal computers a few years later. In concept it was similar to T<?sdop subscript_small="no" subscript_down="16"?><subscript>E</subscript><?sdop subscript_small="yes" subscript_down="33"?>X, which
was being developed at around the same time. However, GCAL was much less
ambitious; I did not attempt to support mathematical typesetting, nor did I
consider using any fonts other than those that were already available in the
various printing devices.
</para>
<para>
Somebody once said that people are either <emphasis>doers</emphasis> or <emphasis>describers</emphasis>. The
former prefer WYSIWSG interfaces, which you can make do things as you watch,
whereas the latter (a smaller fraction of the population, I think) prefer to
create files that describe their requirements, that is, they like markup
languages.
<indexterm>
<primary>T<?sdop subscript_small="no" subscript_down="16"?><subscript>E</subscript><?sdop subscript_small="yes" subscript_down="33"?>X</primary>
</indexterm>
The doers prefer applications like Microsoft Word and Sibelius; the describers
go for T<?sdop subscript_small="no" subscript_down="16"?><subscript>E</subscript><?sdop subscript_small="yes" subscript_down="33"?>X and PMW. I think it is fair to say that, in general, people who
compose music or who want to make arrangements just for performance are happy
with a WYSIWYG approach, but those who are interested in creating high quality
page images for publication (in effect ‘music engravers’) prefer PMW because it
gives very precise control over the placing of every mark on the page.
</para>
<para>
<indexterm>
<primary>T<?sdop superscript_small="no" superscript_up="16"?><superscript>O</superscript><?sdop superscript_small="yes" superscript_up="33"?>X</primary>
</indexterm>
Testing indexing T<?sdop superscript_small="no" superscript_up="16"?><superscript>O</superscript><?sdop superscript_small="yes" superscript_up="33"?>X.
</para>
<para>
<indexterm>
<primary>T<?sdop subscript_small="no" subscript_down="16"?><subscript>E</subscript><?sdop subscript_small="yes" subscript_down="33"?>X</primary>
</indexterm>
At that time Phoenix users still had access only to line-by-line terminals, so
GCAL was not an interactive WYSIWYG word processor of the sort that appeared on
personal computers a few years later. In concept it was similar to T<?sdop
subscript_small="no" subscript_down="16"?><subscript>E</subscript><?sdop
subscript_small="yes" subscript_down="33"?>X, which was being developed at
around the same time.
</para>
<para>
<indexterm>
<primary>T<?sdop subscript_small="no"?><subscript>E</subscript><?sdop subscript_small="yes"?>X</primary>
</indexterm>
At that time Phoenix users still had access only to line-by-line terminals, so
GCAL was not an interactive WYSIWYG word processor of the sort that appeared on
personal computers a few years later. In concept it was similar to T<?sdop
subscript_small="no"?><subscript>E</subscript><?sdop subscript_small="yes"?>X,
which was being developed at around the same time.
</para>
<para>
<indexterm>
<primary>T<subscript>E</subscript>X</primary>
</indexterm>
The doers prefer applications like Microsoft Word and Sibelius; the describers
go for T<subscript>E</subscript>X and PMW.
</para>
<para>
<indexterm>
<primary>T<superscript>E</superscript>X</primary>
</indexterm>
Better make sure that subscripts and superscripts, with the same movement
values, are distinguished. The doers prefer applications like Microsoft Word
and Sibelius; the describers go for T<superscript>E</superscript>X and PMW.
</para>
<para>
<indexterm>
<primary><emphasis role="rgb=1,0,0">T<subscript>E</subscript>X</emphasis></primary>
</indexterm>
The doers prefer applications like Microsoft Word and Sibelius; the describers
go for <emphasis role="rgb=1,0,0">T<subscript>E</subscript>X</emphasis> and
PMW.
</para>
<index>
<title>Index</title>
</index>
|
