Johannes Wiedersich wrote: > True. But my personal experience includes quite a bit of work with word, > OOo *and* LaTeX.
Happy for you. Let me know when you turn into me so your personal
experience matches mine. I'll be happy to let you write the book for me. :P
> LaTeX, especially without formulas or too complicated formatting, is
> easily converted to many different acceptable formats: HTML, pdf, plain
> text, etc.
"Acceptable" by whom? My end goal is to get published. None of those
formats are acceptable for that goal.
> The route via HTML to OOo and .doc is straightforward for the
> situation you describe.
No, it's not. It does not retain all the formatting.
> I didn't want to do hair splitting. I just used the example to convince
> you that you don't require to type '\textit{}' all the times you need
> italics.
Which I never said.
> texmacs is not emacs! See www.texmacs.org.
Technically you're right. From the FAQ, first question:
* is a free scientific text editor, which was both inspired by TeX and GNU
Emacs.
Yeahhhh, scientific text is what I am writing here. Inspired by Emacs.
You're out of touch.
--
Steve C. Lamb | But who decides what they dream?
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | And dream I do...
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
