> >>Authors *care deeply* about how their content looks. Authors *love*
> WYSIWIG - however flawed and illusory.
Absolutely. But publishers usually impose their house style on books
and magazines, which is why spending lots of time "formatting" a
document that someone _else_ is going to publish is such a waste of
This is one excellent reason why a "WYSIWYG" SGML/XML editor is such a
good tool: it lets you use whatever typographic style you want to make
the process of editing (typing, correcting) easy and attractive. It
can then export your standard default plaintext-and-pointy-bracket
SGML or XML which a publisher can then format correctly without having
to waste time undoing the idiocies authors perpetrate on documents
done in spaghetti systems like most wordprocessors.
> Speaking as a writer, I agree and I don't. I want the result to look great,
> but I'm not a designer, I'm a writer. So I care deeply about the result
> looking great, but I depend on others to do the design.
Ditto. But I reserve the right to stamp on designers who grossly
misunderstand the nature of the document type. The classical example
is the idiots who typeset programming examples in italic type when
they had been explicitly edited to align correctly in a fixed-width
font and this had been explained to the "designer" (who had no clue
what it was all about -- gods know why he was employed on that book :-)