<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE book PUBLIC "-//OASIS//DTD DocBook XML V4.2//EN" "http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/xml/4.2/docbookx.dtd">


<?sdop
  font_main="12,1.5,serif"
  numbertitles="yes,no,no"
  page_full_length="100"
  page_line_width="386"
  paper_size="505x665"
  table_warn_overflow="overprint"
  toc_sections="no"
?>
<para>
<indexterm>
<primary>T<?sdop subscript_small="no" subscript_down="16"?><subscript>E</subscript><?sdop subscript_small="yes" subscript_down="33"?>X</primary>
</indexterm>
At that time Phoenix users still had access only to line-by-line terminals, so
GCAL was not an interactive WYSIWYG word processor of the sort that appeared on
personal computers a few years later. In concept it was similar to T<?sdop subscript_small="no" subscript_down="16"?><subscript>E</subscript><?sdop subscript_small="yes" subscript_down="33"?>X, which
was being developed at around the same time. However, GCAL was much less
ambitious; I did not attempt to support mathematical typesetting, nor did I
consider using any fonts other than those that were already available in the
various printing devices.
</para>
<para>
Somebody once said that people are either <emphasis>doers</emphasis> or <emphasis>describers</emphasis>. The
former prefer WYSIWSG interfaces, which you can make do things as you watch,
whereas the latter (a smaller fraction of the population, I think) prefer to
create files that describe their requirements, that is, they like markup
languages. 
<indexterm>
<primary>T<?sdop subscript_small="no" subscript_down="16"?><subscript>E</subscript><?sdop subscript_small="yes" subscript_down="33"?>X</primary>
</indexterm>
The doers prefer applications like Microsoft Word and Sibelius; the describers
go for T<?sdop subscript_small="no" subscript_down="16"?><subscript>E</subscript><?sdop subscript_small="yes" subscript_down="33"?>X and PMW. I think it is fair to say that, in general, people who
compose music or who want to make arrangements just for performance are happy
with a WYSIWYG approach, but those who are interested in creating high quality
page images for publication (in effect &#x2018;music engravers&#x2019;) prefer PMW because it
gives very precise control over the placing of every mark on the page.
</para>
<para>
<indexterm>
<primary>T<?sdop superscript_small="no" superscript_up="16"?><superscript>O</superscript><?sdop superscript_small="yes" superscript_up="33"?>X</primary>
</indexterm>
Testing indexing T<?sdop superscript_small="no" superscript_up="16"?><superscript>O</superscript><?sdop superscript_small="yes" superscript_up="33"?>X.
</para>

<para>
<indexterm>
<primary>T<?sdop subscript_small="no" subscript_down="16"?><subscript>E</subscript><?sdop subscript_small="yes" subscript_down="33"?>X</primary>
</indexterm>
At that time Phoenix users still had access only to line-by-line terminals, so
GCAL was not an interactive WYSIWYG word processor of the sort that appeared on
personal computers a few years later. In concept it was similar to T<?sdop
subscript_small="no" subscript_down="16"?><subscript>E</subscript><?sdop
subscript_small="yes" subscript_down="33"?>X, which was being developed at
around the same time.
</para>

<para>
<indexterm>
<primary>T<?sdop subscript_small="no"?><subscript>E</subscript><?sdop subscript_small="yes"?>X</primary>
</indexterm>
At that time Phoenix users still had access only to line-by-line terminals, so
GCAL was not an interactive WYSIWYG word processor of the sort that appeared on
personal computers a few years later. In concept it was similar to T<?sdop
subscript_small="no"?><subscript>E</subscript><?sdop subscript_small="yes"?>X,
which was being developed at around the same time.
</para>

<para>
<indexterm>
<primary>T<subscript>E</subscript>X</primary>
</indexterm>
The doers prefer applications like Microsoft Word and Sibelius; the describers
go for T<subscript>E</subscript>X and PMW. 
</para>

<para>
<indexterm>
<primary>T<superscript>E</superscript>X</primary>
</indexterm>
Better make sure that subscripts and superscripts, with the same movement
values, are distinguished. The doers prefer applications like Microsoft Word
and Sibelius; the describers go for T<superscript>E</superscript>X and PMW.
</para>

<para>
<indexterm>
<primary><emphasis role="rgb=1,0,0">T<subscript>E</subscript>X</emphasis></primary>
</indexterm>
The doers prefer applications like Microsoft Word and Sibelius; the describers
go for <emphasis role="rgb=1,0,0">T<subscript>E</subscript>X</emphasis> and
PMW.
</para>

<index>
<title>Index</title>
</index>

