 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> Here HTML is the way to go; lots of scope with CSS! But then, no maths...
>
> Well, you can mix MathML inside XHTML; but I can't tell you about
> browser support :)
And let us not even speak of source code readability or even typability...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> (Now and then, I do have these insane ideas that maybe I could
> reimplement TeX using Haskell. I mean, the source code is available, so...)
I just downloaded "tex.web" and started reading it... Hmm, LOL!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/11/05 08:34:
> Ah-hah. So there *is* a secret hidden tool for altering them! (At least,
> there is in Word 2003.)
>
> Still puzzled as to why you have to open up a special window to do this.
> (I.e., why you can't just click on the style you want to change.) But
> then, this is from the program where you can't change any program
> settings unless you have a document open. (WTF?)
Still wondering about those same things...
>
> (Ooo, that's nice... If I change a style to match an existing one, the
> existing one gets deleted. And if I change the justification for the
> Normal style, the other styles update. Pitty you can't explicitly say
> which settings are applied in THIS style and which ones should just be
> inherited...)
I know, inheritance can be a pain. As every styles ARE defined from the "normal"
style, they ALL inherit any change you make to it. You should be able to set
what characteristics of a style are inheritable.
Solution: Create your own style, say "MyNormal". Then, if you want, derive some
other styles from it.
>
> Well, you just described the steps to do the *opposite* of what I want
> to do (i.e., I want to change *from* Arial, not *to* it), but OK. Let's
> see now...
>
> OK, no go. Word *refuses* to overwrite NORMAL.DOT because it's already
> open. (Duh!) God I hate Word! >_<
File|Open... select "normal.dot", edit it, hit CTRL+S, done. Simple.
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
No matter how much you do, you never do enough.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Fa3ien wrote:
>>
>>> And yet, no known word processor works like this. I find this deeply
>>> frustrating.
>>
>> Lotus Ami Pro did that pretty well. Most consistent style-sheets system
>> I encountered in a word processor. Don't know if they still sell Ami's
>> successor, Word Pro.
>>
>> BTW, don't highlight text when applying a style, just put the cursor
>> within the
>> paragraph, and the style will be applied to the paragraph (that's how
>> it should be).
>
> So... how would you, for example, apply a style that only applies to a
> single word rather than a whole paragraph?
There are *paragraph* styles (noted with that strange P), and *character*
styles (noted with an underlined 'a'). Altough Word lets you apply a
paragraph style on a *portion* of paragraph, you shouldn't, you should
use a character style in this situation. Or you'll run into problems.
> The main problem with M$ Word is that it tries to "guess" what you want
> to do so it can automatically do it for you. M$ seems to think that this
> is "cleaver" and makes their software look cool. However, any number of
> HCI studies will show you that non-deterministic software is
> instrinsically harder to learn...
Very true. Nonetheless, it's mostly possible to master Word, with
a little experience and self-discipline.
> Once I discovered the secret hidden control panel where you can actually
> change this stuff, I managed to get Word to do what I want. (Although
> it's still very confusing trying to work out where all the settings
> here. E.g., why does it add a 12 pt kern there? I didn't ask for that?!)
Automatic numbering is especially frustrating in that respect. But there
are also some tricks that helps, once it's understood.
> The trouble with OO is that out of the box, there are several hundred
> styles defined. Most of which aren't appropriate to me, and which don't
> match my tastes anyway. I did sit down and start reconfiguring them all
> to the correct font one at a time, but it was taking forever. And the
> next document I started, it all went back to horrid Arial again anyway!
Why define so many styles ? You just need to define 5 or 6 styles for
an average document.
Fabien.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> I just downloaded "tex.web" and started reading it... Hmm, LOL!
Oh wow... This stuff is really special.
The entire source code for TeX is a single 1 MB text file containing
almost 25,000 lines of text. Almost all of it is documentation. I'm sure
there's some Pascal code in there somewhere.
The code contains all kinds of bizare workarounds for ancient Pascal
systems that don't support 8-bit character values (!), opening files
who's names aren't known at compile-time (!!), storing error message
strings in a flexible way (!?!), converting non-ASCII character sets
such as EBCIDIC into ASCII before further processing, and all kinds of
other utterly archaic non-issues.
Just... wow.
Clearly this thing is going to take an absurd amount of effort to
decipher! o_O
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/11/05 10:11:
> Brian Elliott wrote:
>
>> Whinge, whinge, whinge. :-P :-)
>> They do do it. You just haven't figured it out.
>
> So, I figured out LaTeX and HTML (not to mention POV-Ray, the Lambda
> calculus, cryptography, inorganic chemistry, and much else besides) yet
> I couldn't figure out M$ Word?
>
> What does this say about M$ Word? ;-)
>
> (Come to think about it, one critical difference between Word and those
> other things is the lack of a *manual*. POV-Ray comes with an excellent
> manual, but Word only offers context help. Not very useful if you have
> no idea how a broad feature is supposed to work!)
>
There ARE manuals, many of them in fact. It's just that they are NOT included
with the product, some are very simples (Word for Dummy), and some even come
with a teacher ;)
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
A modest man is usually admired; if people ever hear of him.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] dev null> wrote in message
news:472f3294$1@news.povray.org...
> Brian Elliott wrote:
>
>> Whinge, whinge, whinge. :-P :-)
>> They do do it. You just haven't figured it out.
>
> So, I figured out LaTeX and HTML (not to mention POV-Ray, the Lambda
> calculus, cryptography, inorganic chemistry, and much else besides) yet I
> couldn't figure out M$ Word?
>
> What does this say about M$ Word? ;-)
Don't get too smug Andrew, it has a corollary: What does it say about you?
;-)
> (Come to think about it, one critical difference between Word and those
> other things is the lack of a *manual*. POV-Ray comes with an excellent
> manual, but Word only offers context help. Not very useful if you have no
> idea how a broad feature is supposed to work!)
I don't particularly like it either. Although there is a table-of-contents
help, not only context. But Word seems to on-demand download this help from
Microsoft's Internet sites somewhere as you explore the topics. There are
benefits that I can think to doing it that way in terms of documentation
quality and updates, but it creeps me out. I won't even cite "saving
storage space" as a valid excuse for doing it that way instead of shipping
with the app.
>>> (In particular, I utterly *hate* sans serif fonts. Yet all these
>>> programs always default to it. GRR! At least Excel lets you change the
>>> default worksheet font; OpenOffice Calc seems to lack any such
>>> option...)
>>
>> I'd feel sad for you, but I prefer sans-serif. Particularly for the
>> types of documentation we do most of at work (standards, policy, process,
>> work instruction, system description). Easier to read and clearer pages
>> than all the serif clutter, which I think is more appropriate to books
>> and promotional material.
>
> I just think sans serif text looks primitive and unsophisticated and
> generally childish. (Arial is almost as ugly as my own hand writing - and
> that's saying something!)
Then we disagree on taste. I like cleanliness and dislike clutter. Whether
or not serifs are attached isn't about "primitivity", it's about function.
There are purposes and situations to use serifed fonts, and situations for
sans-serif. Situations for old-style fonts and also for modern. There are
proper typographical definitions for these BTW and typography books describe
which font styles are most appropriate to use in which document types.
Writing a novel in a sans-serif font is bad for readability in massed text,
but so is using a serifed font of the wrong weight, style or embellishment.
A procedure document printed with a serifed font on a typical office A4
printer can be eyecrossing. It's about how whitespace is balanced in the
font and the space around. Race cars and sedans are both cars, but neither
are suited to the other's function and you wouldn't use them that way.
> Plus I dislike having 3 distinct characters with identical glyphs.
> [Lower-L, upper-I and 1.]
The 1 (one) is not affected -- it has a hook, but I agree the other two are
definitely an issue.
... and I notice that while your reply shifts off-subject to complain about
trivial points about fonts you hate and M$ you hate, you bypassed any notice
of the important thing that this was all about: That help to get you out of
your predicament was given to you at all. I even made a document for you to
demonstrate the principle. Even a "Thanks, I appreciate the effort and
examples, but it didn't solve my issue" would be more socially apt.
At times like this, I think you deep down hate it when people help you to
solve your problems, because your original motivation was only to be heard
complaining. Solving things takes away your justification to keep in a
publicly bad mood.
--
Brian
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/11/05 10:17:
> Fa3ien wrote:
>> Invisible a écrit :
>>
>>> And yet, no known word processor works like this. I find this deeply
>>> frustrating.
>>
>> Lotus Ami Pro did that pretty well. Most consistent style-sheets system
>> I encountered in a word processor. Don't know if they still sell Ami's
>> successor, Word Pro.
>>
>> BTW, don't highlight text when applying a style, just put the cursor
>> within the
>> paragraph, and the style will be applied to the paragraph (that's how
>> it should be).
>
> So... how would you, for example, apply a style that only applies to a
> single word rather than a whole paragraph?
Put the cursor anywhere in the paragraph to change it's style, highlight one or
some words to change them.
When you highlight something, any change you make apply to that block. Highlight
a paragraph and change it's style, and the next paragraph will still have the
default style. Put the cursor in the paragraph and change it's style, and the
next paragraph will continue with that changed style.
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
You know you've been raytracing too long when you prefer bald romatic partners,
because they're easier to model.
John VanSickle
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Alain" <ele### [at] netscapenet> wrote in message
news:472f49f0$1@news.povray.org...
> Invisible nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/11/05 08:34:
>
>> Ah-hah. So there *is* a secret hidden tool for altering them! (At least,
>> there is in Word 2003.)
>>
>> Still puzzled as to why you have to open up a special window to do this.
>> (I.e., why you can't just click on the style you want to change.) But
>> then, this is from the program where you can't change any program
>> settings unless you have a document open. (WTF?)
> Still wondering about those same things...
>>
>> (Ooo, that's nice... If I change a style to match an existing one, the
>> existing one gets deleted. And if I change the justification for the
>> Normal style, the other styles update. Pitty you can't explicitly say
>> which settings are applied in THIS style and which ones should just be
>> inherited...)
> I know, inheritance can be a pain. As every styles ARE defined from the
> "normal" style, they ALL inherit any change you make to it. You should be
> able to set what characteristics of a style are inheritable.
> Solution: Create your own style, say "MyNormal". Then, if you want, derive
> some other styles from it.
>>
>
>> Well, you just described the steps to do the *opposite* of what I want to
>> do (i.e., I want to change *from* Arial, not *to* it), but OK. Let's see
>> now...
>>
>> OK, no go. Word *refuses* to overwrite NORMAL.DOT because it's already
>> open. (Duh!) God I hate Word! >_<
> File|Open... select "normal.dot", edit it, hit CTRL+S, done. Simple.
Andrew, THINK instead of reacting and publickly flying to bits at every
puzzle you can't open in ten seconds flat. Your biggest fallacy is assuming
that because you haven't personally got it ***YET***, then it's proven FACT
that NO answer exists. Instead of taking research to the next level, you
shut the book and blame the fuck out of the software for being criminally
stupid or whatever thing it is that has your pique at the moment.
Seeking help and answers is OK. Having tantrums is the realm of children
and is not becoming in people beyond 11 years old.
You must be totally emotionally exhausted at the end of every day if they
are all like this...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 05.11.2007 13:07, Invisible nous fit lire :
> If you write stuff in LaTeX, you can ask for a section heading or a
> subsection heading, and LaTeX will automatically take care of all
> formatting for you. Indeed, it will even build a table of contents if
> you want.
>
> If you write stuff in HTML, you can also ask for various levels of
> headings. And using CSS, you can tune exactly what the result looks
> like. For example, if you suddenly decide that you want all the level 2
> headings in italics, you can change 1 line of CSS and the whole document
> is instantly updated to match.
> Seriously. I want to be able to create sections and subsections, and *I*
> want to choose what these look like. Is that really so hard? Why has
> nobody implemented this simple feature yet??
Then your way is Lyx!
Latex front-end (hiding all the latex from innocent users). Ready to
write the model...
Or raw editing of XHTML. (no sexy bogus html writer which just keep
adding more and more tags of useless formatting).
--
The superior man understands what is right;
the inferior man understands what will sell.
-- Confucius
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
