Your are right, the TeXmacs name is very misleading. Indeed. I suppose Joris named its tool TeXmacs because TeX and emacs were conceptual starting point that he improved and merged. But because TeXmacs it is neither TeX or emacs, people
have wrong expectations leading to disapointment and
they miss the major point: we got at last a scriptable WYSISYG
typesetting tool with separates content and layout.
Like TeX, TeXmacs is a typesetting system. TeXmacs does not rely on TeX except for
MetaFonts and bibtex.
Like emacs, TeXmacs composite keybindings are used, but TeXmacs does not rely in any way has emacs. As a recent user and programmer of TeXmacs, I feel TeXmacs should have a mode to support beginners that drives them gently to power using.
Also , contrary to claims in other threads, TeXmacs supports styles sheet and cleanly supports separation between content and layout. Despite this feat, Joris has
a lot of work before him that you both can't do WYSISYGness and "separation between content and layout". Probably some wrong ideas are so entrenched that people don't even bother to check when evidence is
a download away.
Slashdot Mirror
Like TeX, TeXmacs is a typesetting system. TeXmacs does not rely on TeX except for MetaFonts and bibtex.
Like emacs, TeXmacs composite keybindings are used, but TeXmacs does not rely in any way has emacs. As a recent user and programmer of TeXmacs, I feel TeXmacs should have a mode to support beginners that drives them gently to power using.
Also , contrary to claims in other threads, TeXmacs supports styles sheet and cleanly supports separation between content and layout. Despite this feat, Joris has a lot of work before him that you both can't do WYSISYGness and "separation between content and layout". Probably some wrong ideas are so entrenched that people don't even bother to check when evidence is a download away.