[texworks] Wishlist for pdf previewer

Carlo Marmo carlo.marmo at gmail.com
Mon Sep 26 16:16:47 CEST 2011

Thank you Jonathan. This point was not clear to me. For this special
purpose, I'll keep ms word.

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Jonathan Kew <jfkthame at googlemail.com>wrote:

> On 26 Sep 2011, at 14:42, Carlo Marmo wrote:
> > Well, I agree common sense and experience should definitely do the job.
> > Sometime, in order to meet special requirements, I have to provide the
> Flesch–Kincaid readability index for each piece of writing I submit to my
> institution. This provide numeric data that measures how easy it is to read
> your document. Ms Word has a special readability built-in tool. So I have to
> convert my output pdf files in .doc to check readability trough ms word.
> From my point of view, it would be great to have a similar tool for Tw.
> Such a tool doesn't belong as part of TW, in my opinion.
> It would be virtually impossible to implement this in a general way, so
> that it would work with arbitrary (La|Con|*)TeX(t) documents; any such tool
> would be designed for a certain limited class of documents (e.g. a specific
> language, using a particular collection of LaTeX packages and a carefully
> controlled layout), and would need to be adapted to work under different
> circumstances.
> If the documents that matter to you follow a sufficiently well-defined form
> that you can reliably implement something like this, fine: do so as an
> external tool, and run it from a script if you want to access it from within
> TW. But it won't be a generic "readability analyser" for TeX documents,
> it'll be a special-purpose tool for your specific needs, and it doesn't
> belong in the actual TW product.
> JK
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 1:18 PM, BPJ <bpj at melroch.se> wrote:
> > On 2011-09-26 08:51, Carlo Marmo wrote:
> > not sure this is duable or relevant for most of you. what about adding an
> > index of readability tool like ms word?
> >
> > Wouldn't that be (human) language-dependent? Or are you talking of
> > *graphical* readability? I prefer to use my acquired experience /
> > common sense for both kinds (except that philological typesetting
> > is rather restricted to a few, fortunately quite good, fonts for
> > availability reasons).
> >
> > /bpj
> >
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://tug.org/pipermail/texworks/attachments/20110926/63ed0b22/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the texworks mailing list