mailing-list for TeXmacs Users

[Magnus Rohde <address@hidden>]

Den 28/9-2005, kl. 18:38, Henri Lesourd wrote:

> In general, I think that the really important thing is to succeed in 
> finding your own way, not to compare yourself with others ; but as far 
> as Xfig is concerned, of course I --must-- disagree with you : it is 
> in fact quite realistic to say that **today**, we are already 
> successfully competing on their very turf ! ;-)

If by "successfully competing" you mean failing miserably, then I agree 
with you ;-). The graphics mode, as it is now, does not even come close 
to any drawing program I have used since 1993.
When I mentioned Xfig and Illustrator it was just as examples for a 
type of program usually referred to as drawing programs and not a 
reference to these specific programs. And I really don't think that the 
graphics mode in TeXmacs will ever become a serious choice when it 
comes to drawing anything more than a few lines or very simple sketches 
(a bit like the drawing thingy in M$ Word).
I would be glad if you could prove me wrong, of course. :-)

>  For example, in a not too far future, it could lead us to new 
> features for resizing non-graphical objects (like tables, for 
> example), directly with the mouse.

I would really like to see this.

Den 28/9-2005, kl. 17:49, Alvaro Tejero Cantero wrote:

> On the Illustrator point I only have to add that it is rather the 
> opposite way
> to the one you put it. It is impossible for Illustrator to compete 
> with any free
> application because it is not free.

You are correct for the very small minority of people for which 
software freedom matters. For the rest it is a matter of value for 
money, and when it comes to Illustrator/Corel Draw/FreeHand they offer 
real value for money, when compared to the graphics mode in TeXmacs as 
it is now.

> Which program does a decent job of incorporating structured 
> typesetting and a
> more free placement of objects? I would be delighted to hear names...

None that I know of, but maybe TeXmacs in the future...

> I also would perhaps prefer more development in the mainline of 
> structuration,
> export, styles, extremely careful typesetting, etc. But if you have 
> been around
> in this list for enough time, you should know by now that the 
> statement above is
> more than a bit unfair and impolite to Joris to say the least.

I know that Joris does put many hours into the project, and my comment 
wasn't on his or any other's work. What I was trying to say was that I 
don't think that the direction of development should be guided by the 
interests of the available workforce.

Den 28/9-2005, kl. 21:19, Corey Sweeney wrote:

>  You are proposing that more "should" be going on the "essential 
> functionality" of TeXmacs, but i'm a little fuzzy as to what that 
> means.  Does this refer to bugfixes? Is it a HCI thing?  For example a 
> upgrade to a new widget library (like gtk2 or whatever) would be cool. 
> Or perhaps "template libraries"  (like templates for legal forms or 
> whatever comes in office packages)

I was thinking mostly of "ease of use" or HCI, and not specifically 
templates, but now easy they are to create. I know it has become a lot 
easier with the new documentation, but a function like "save as 
TeXmacs-style" would be cool. Also font handling, missing characters in 
TrueType-fonts and unicode support are areas with room for improvement. 
I don't care about widget libraries as it is mostly a question of 
looks, not functionality.



Magnus