[texworks] Wishlist for pdf previewer

Arno Trautmann Arno.Trautmann at gmx.de
Mon Sep 26 16:20:43 CEST 2011

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

Or you might implement it as a free tool and offer it to the TeX 
community. I'm sure many people could benefit from this.


> 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

More information about the texworks mailing list