http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TYPSET_and_RUNOFF

Is there any connection, technical or otherwise, between this RUNOFF
and the RUNOFF function on the native Microdata machines?

From my recollection, the Microdata approach to word processing was
similar to TEX and SCRIBUS in that it used a mark-up language.

While we all know that WYSIWYG has, so far, won the WP game, is there
any technical reason why a DOCUMENTOR style WP cannot gain some
significant market share?

Henry Keultjes
Mansfield Ohio USA

hbkeultjes <hbkeultjes (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:
I was originally thinking "probably not", but I just compared the D3
Reference manual details on the RUNOFF processor with the CTSS
Programmers Guide and it seems apparent that there were common
influences.
http://mit.edu/Saltzer/www/publications/AH.9.01.html
On further thinking, it should hardly be surprising that the MV Runoff
is similar in name and style with contemporary products. After all,
there are benefits to being compatible with the competition.


You've already ansered your question. Documentor-style WP cannot gain
market share because others have already won the game.

[AD] And if you still have Runoff, OP, or JET docs hanging around,
Nebula R&D can convert the docs to Word, PDF, HTML, RTF, and other
formats via ConnectingFlight. We've converted tens of thousands of
documents for many happy clients. See testimonials on our web page:
nospam.pleaseNebula-RnD.com/services/connflight.htm
[/AD]

Tony Gravagno
Nebula Research and Development
TG@ remove.pleaseNebula-RnD.com
remove.pleaseNebula-RnD.com/blog
Visit PickWiki.com! Contribute!
http://Twitter.com/TonyGravagno