4 ms·

It really depends on the specific user and why they need the language. Ultimately, Polymath is meant to provide a file format that will work for the long term,

It really depends on the specific user and why they need the language. Ultimately, Polymath is meant to provide a file format that will work for the long term, so I don't think users should be always getting an abstraction of the language through WYSIWYG, because then they don't understand the files they are preserving. If you only care about having a nice blog, then sure, WYSIWYG might be convenient, but the whole reason for using Polymath instead of pure HTML/CSS + JS libraries is because it gives you the same/similar level of convenience as a WYSIWYG editor without losing exactness and understanding.

alok-g 7y ago
I follow that viewpoint and am OK with the direction being taken. On the other hand, even after asking many, I have never received a good answer to why the exactness and understanding cannot be obtained with a WSYIWYG/M markup editor.
- johnmorrison 7y ago
  They abstract away from the underlying code. You wouldn't be able to tell the difference between {b Bolded} {b text} and b Bolded text this becomes especially concerning with TeX, custom styling, etc
  - alok-g 7y ago
    That makes sense, and I can imagine that. However, should it not be possible for the software to find a minimal cover for the formatting that would produce the same visual output, thereby practically recovering what hard-crafted markup would have been? Thanks.
    - johnmorrison 7y ago
      Yeah, if I'm interpreting your words correctly, this would be like turning p {b This} {b text is} {b bolded} this isn't into p {b This text is bolded} this isn't But then the issue is as follows: In Polymath, I'm planning on allowing basically arbitrary CSS styling by parent, id, class, etc. So if the user later wants to do something like put a rounded box around each span of bolded text, those two, while initially looking identical in WYSIWYG, end up completely different.
      - alok-g 7y ago
        I can take that. Thanks.

alok-g 7y ago

I follow that viewpoint and am OK with the direction being taken. On the other hand, even after asking many, I have never received a good answer to why the exactness and understanding cannot be obtained with a WSYIWYG/M markup editor.

johnmorrison 7y ago
They abstract away from the underlying code. You wouldn't be able to tell the difference between {b Bolded} {b text} and b Bolded text this becomes especially concerning with TeX, custom styling, etc
- alok-g 7y ago
  That makes sense, and I can imagine that. However, should it not be possible for the software to find a minimal cover for the formatting that would produce the same visual output, thereby practically recovering what hard-crafted markup would have been? Thanks.
  - johnmorrison 7y ago
    Yeah, if I'm interpreting your words correctly, this would be like turning p {b This} {b text is} {b bolded} this isn't into p {b This text is bolded} this isn't But then the issue is as follows: In Polymath, I'm planning on allowing basically arbitrary CSS styling by parent, id, class, etc. So if the user later wants to do something like put a rounded box around each span of bolded text, those two, while initially looking identical in WYSIWYG, end up completely different.
    - alok-g 7y ago
      I can take that. Thanks.