Johannes Wiedersich wrote: > Steve Lamb wrote: >> The ultimate irony is that the end result of all this evangelical blather >> for LaTeX has resulted in people suggesting extremely convoluted methods of >> achieving a simple requirement in OOo. Convert LaTeX to HTML and then from >> HTML to Word! That is reasonable?!
> Yes. Reasonable, simple, efficient.
OOo -> Save As .doc
LaTex -> Export to HTML, find an HTML to .doc converter, hope all the
formatting goes through (which it won't).
That is not simple, that is not efficient and that is not reasonable.
> (Unfortunately the way from word to LaTeX is not nearly that efficient
> if not impossible.)
Good thing I'm not using Word then, a point that most people gloss over.
> Note, that you said that you don't know yet, if you need .doc at all,
> since the manuscript is not finished and you don't know for sure that
> .doc is a requirement for the publishers you will be sending your
> manuscript to.
Correct. However I also said that in my research of potential publishers
only 3 formats were accepted. Printed manuscript which is increasingly
frowned upon, plain text which loses formatting, or .DOC. That means it is in
my best interest in the long run to ensure that whatever format I work in is
easily and reasonable converted to the most widely accepted format which
retains formatting.
> No. The reason for suggesting WYSIWYG editors was that you said you are
> not comfortable with other editors.
I never said that, either. I said that for this purpose I wish to think
about it visually, not conceptually. My vim-fu is quite strong, thanks.
--
Steve C. Lamb | But who decides what they dream?
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | And dream I do...
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
