[Scribus] Wordprocessor -> Scribus - but somewhat difficult

[John R. Culleton]

On Tuesday 26 June 2007 13:02, Thomas Zastrow wrote:
> John R. Culleton schrieb:
> > On Tuesday 26 June 2007 09:15, Christoph Sch?fer wrote:
> >> Am Dienstag, 26. Juni 2007 14:36 schrieb John R. Culleton:
> >>> On Sunday 24 June 2007 01:19, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
> >>>> On 6/24/07, Michael Engel wrote:
> >>>>> I searched for "italic fonts" and just found that there are
> >>>>> some reasons not to have it included - but this is not
> >>>>> understandable for the non-professionals.
> >>>>
> >>>> http://wiki.scribus.net/index.php/Word_Processing_vs_DTP
> >>>
> >>> It is interesting that TeX was not mentioned in the Wiki
> >>> article.
> >>
> >> It's not mentioned because TeX is a typesetting engine, not a
> >> word processor.
> >
> > Quark and InDesign are mentioned, and they are certainly not word
> > processors either.
> >
> >>> It
> >>> is an Open Source DTP application with a large number of users.
> >>
> >> If typesetting is the same as DTP for you, then, yes, TeX and
> >> its children are DTP applications.
> >
> > Since TeX in its Context incarnation will also do some amount of
> > imposition  then I wonder what is lacking to make it a dtp
> > application in your understanding.  I am not arguing, just
> > asking. Is it the lack of a built-in text editor? The lack of
> > WYSIWYG?
>
> It is the lack of totally control over the layout: TeX places
> images *somewhere* where it thinks they fit, but I have not realy a
> chance to says that they have to appear exactly here or there.
>
> >> BTW, many Scribus users and
> >> certainly the developers and contributors know TeX very well ;)
>
> I have to use LateX/TeX every day in the university ... and I hate
> it ... ;-)
>
I hate LateX also, which is why I use plain pdftex or Context for most 
apps. LaTeX has turned more people off than I can count.  It is too 
verbose and too dedicated to a specific type of document. 

> > Yes, I was only questioning the wiki article.
>
> TeX isn't a DTP app - because the lack of control. 

I have been able to do finegrained control in TeX with commands such 
as positive and negative \vskip, hskip, \kern and so on. It isn't 
nearly as convenient for placing graphics as e.g., Scribus but it can 
be done. For exact placment there is always pstricks. And my 
customers prefer the superior typesetting of TeX even in 
graphics-heavy books. But in general TeX is more abstract, mor 
automatic ---it will try to make the graphics placement decisions for 
you. This is handy on long documents where the customer wants to 
change the font size or insert extra text after the job is laid out. 

Things like fitting text to an irregular shape etc. are so complex as 
to not be worth doing in TeX. But they can be done via metafun, a 
facliity of Context.  Scribus shines in such tasks. 
 
> TeX isn't a 
> wordprocessor - because of missing WYSIWYG, missing Editor and so
> on and so on and so on. TeX is a typesetting engine, not more and
> not less.
>
And I never suggested that TeX was anything like  a wordprocessor. 
TeX follows the Unix-like philosophy of separate tools for separate 
tasks. I use the strong editor Gvim to drive my process, with F keys 
assigned in Gvim to compile the text in TeX and display the resulting 
pdf in Kpdf. This is my form of WYSYIWYG.  Kpdf will automatically 
update to the latest version of the pdf and hold on to its current 
page position.
 
> Feel free to add a section about typesetting engines to the wiki -
> beside TeX, I would also suggest XSL FO ....
>
Don't know that program.  I'll look it up.
> Best,
>
> Tom

-- 
John Culleton
Able Indexers and Typesetters.