Stefano Franchi wrote:
Yes. In my field---Humanities---this is the almost universal rule. The
"academically serious publishers" (i.e. those you need to publish with
to get tenure ;-) ) want complete control and use MS Word as an
editing format which they will input, typically, into InDesign (
Tim Michelsen schrieb:
I believe that there is also an option to export as rtf.
Not in my 1.4.3on Ubuntu Lyx-Qt.
What program is used for that export? Maybe I missed to install it...
You need latex2rtf at http://latex2rtf.sourceforge.net/
I did install it and reconfigured it. But the RTF-Exp
I believe that there is also an option to export as rtf.
Not in my 1.4.3on Ubuntu Lyx-Qt.
What program is used for that export? Maybe I missed to install it...
You need latex2rtf at http://latex2rtf.sourceforge.net/
I did install it and reconfigured it. But the RTF-Export is still not
presen
>>Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 00:57:03 +0300
>>From: Micha Feigin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>To: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org
>>Subject: Re: How to Spot a Word Processed Book
>>
>>On Sun, 13 May 2007 13:07:03 +0200
>>Tim Michelsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, 13 May 2007 13:07:03 +0200
Tim Michelsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I still use Word for the final spell check of my documents. After the
> LyX spell checker run and proof-reading everything, I just copy the
> whole text into an empty word document and look for
Hello,
I still use Word for the final spell check of my documents. After the
LyX spell checker run and proof-reading everything, I just copy the
whole text into an empty word document and look for suspicious red and
green lines.
How to you do this?
I can't copy anything from Lyx to another prog
I would hope to see LyX concentrate on export to
OpenDocumentFormat, for several reasons
1. MS is developing supporting ODF import, so RTF will not
be necessary to get into Word, and the Sun ODF Plug-in for
Microsoft Word is already available
2. ODF realy is a *documented* format, while RTF i
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 08:48:07PM -0400, Alan G Isaac wrote:
> As other comments have highlighted, even though WYSIWYG word
> processors are generally cumbersome for writing, they can be
> subsequently useful for editing and for interoperability.
>
> Some people need to get from LyX to Word. Th
On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 09:53:10AM +1200, Stefano Franchi wrote:
> Yes. In my field---Humanities---this is the almost universal rule. The
> "academically serious publishers" (i.e. those you need to publish with
> to get tenure ;-) ) want complete control and use MS Word as an editing
> format wh
On Fri, 11 May 2007, José Matos wrote:
On Friday 11 May 2007 09:16:49 Helge Hafting wrote:
This is a problem. High on the 1.6 wishlist is a "no language"
language. LyX should then skip anything in this language
when spellchecking. Apply this to computer code and such
and be fine. . .
Is thi
As other comments have highlighted, even though WYSIWYG word
processors are generally cumbersome for writing, they can be
subsequently useful for editing and for interoperability.
Some people need to get from LyX to Word. The core question
seems to be whether to
- write LyX directly to RTF, or
On 10 May, 2007, at 6:45 AM, Steve Litt wrote:
On Wednesday 09 May 2007 14:23, Rich Shepard wrote:
On Wed, 9 May 2007, Steve Litt wrote:
Interesting article:
How to Spot a Word Processed Book
What jumps out at me when I look at a processed word book is the
uneven
spacing between words
On Friday 11 May 2007 09:16:49 Helge Hafting wrote:
> This is a problem. High on the 1.6 wishlist is a "no language"
> language. LyX should then skip anything in this language
> when spellchecking. Apply this to computer code and such
> and be fine. . .
Is this request posted somewhere?
This
On Fri, 11 May 2007 09:45:58 +0200
Daniel Lohmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tim Michelsen wrote:
> >
> > Very good point. I often do get the comment that I should run the spell
> > checker. But it takes the same amount of time to check with the Lyx
> > spell checker and train it all the techn
Tim Michelsen wrote:
Another unique selling point of Word is the language checker (spell and
grammar), which is an order of magnitude better than aspell, ispell and
everything else I have seen so far. For a publisher this might be a
strong argument, as submitted documents already contain signi
Helge Hafting wrote:
> Daniel Lohmann wrote:
>> Tim Michelsen wrote:
>>
>>> Very good point. I often do get the comment that I should run the spell
>>> checker. But it takes the same amount of time to check with the Lyx
>>> spell checker and train it all the technical terms as
>>> printing and co
Daniel Lohmann wrote:
Tim Michelsen wrote:
Very good point. I often do get the comment that I should run the spell
checker. But it takes the same amount of time to check with the Lyx
spell checker and train it all the technical terms as
printing and correcting it manually.
Especially
Tim Michelsen wrote:
>
> Very good point. I often do get the comment that I should run the spell
> checker. But it takes the same amount of time to check with the Lyx
> spell checker and train it all the technical terms as
> printing and correcting it manually.
Especially if you write a lot of c
Julio Rojas wrote:
Bad thing most of us work in Windows. Hope someday PDF's can be
commented by default, or at least that you don't need Acrobat
Professional to make them able for comments.
Windoes users can also use Arenable
http://sourceforge.net/projects/arenable/
On 5/10/07, Russell Dav
Another unique selling point of Word is the language checker (spell and
grammar), which is an order of magnitude better than aspell, ispell and
everything else I have seen so far. For a publisher this might be a
strong argument, as submitted documents already contain significantly
fewer languag
Russell Davie wrote:
> Annotating pdf? no excuses now!
>
Well, the tools to annotate PDFs -- including Acrobat -- are quite clumsy.
And of course there is a significant difference between editing (in the
sense of performing visible changes to the document, each of which can
later be approved or
Thanks for the tip. I think I'll install in on my tutor's computer ASAP!!! :D
On 5/10/07, Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Julio Rojas wrote:
> Bad thing most of us work in Windows. Hope someday PDF's can be
> commented by default, or at least that you don't need Acrobat
> Profession
Julio Rojas wrote:
Bad thing most of us work in Windows. Hope someday PDF's can be
commented by default, or at least that you don't need Acrobat
Professional to make them able for comments.
Last version of foxit supports annotation for free. Some other programs
can do that too. Acrobat is not
On Thu, 10 May 2007 15:10:12 +0200
"Julio Rojas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bad thing most of us work in Windows. Hope someday PDF's can be
> commented by default, or at least that you don't need Acrobat
> Professional to make them able for comments.
Virtualize!
no need to get Adobe, just run
On Thursday 10 May 2007 07:40, William Adams wrote:
>
> As regards why publishers choose the tools they do, well it's
> complicated. I wrote up my take on it on comp.text.tex a while back:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.text.tex/msg/36401bceced0ee9a
Very interesting analogy.
I'd say for
On Thursday 10 May 2007 07:20, Helge Hafting wrote:
>
> Or alternatively, they could supply a latex class seeing that tex
> probably is one of the larger "minority" formats. Might be useful
> if they have enough people wanting to use tex. This generally works for
> lyx users too.
I think this w
Bad thing most of us work in Windows. Hope someday PDF's can be
commented by default, or at least that you don't need Acrobat
Professional to make them able for comments.
On 5/10/07, Russell Davie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2007 08:24:34 +0200
"Julio Rojas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wro
On Thu, 10 May 2007 08:24:34 +0200
"Julio Rojas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What I'm really amazed of, is the quantity of technical and
> engineering congresses that "ask" the authors to submit their papers
> is Word format and don't have (and don't support) LaTeX styles.
>
> I'm doing some eva
On May 10, 2007, at 7:31 AM, Daniel Lohmann wrote:
Rich Shepard wrote:
[...]
When I wrote Tim O'Reilly to ask why they have that policy he
never responded.
I guess they do it for pragmatic reasons. It is just the "editor"
that
is most common among writers - and documents are most probably
Rich Shepard wrote:
> [...]
> When I wrote Tim O'Reilly to ask why they have that policy he
> never responded.
>
I guess they do it for pragmatic reasons. It is just the "editor" that
is most common among writers - and documents are most probably converted
into an in-house format for the types
Steve Litt wrote:
On Wednesday 09 May 2007 14:23, Rich Shepard wrote:
On Wed, 9 May 2007, Steve Litt wrote:
Interesting article:
How to Spot a Word Processed Book
What jumps out at me when I look at a processed word book is the uneven
spacing between words on each line. The
What I'm really amazed of, is the quantity of technical and
engineering congresses that "ask" the authors to submit their papers
is Word format and don't have (and don't support) LaTeX styles.
I'm doing some evangelism with my friends that are working on their
PhD's to switch to LyX/LaTeX. They i
Steve Litt wrote:
Big publishers like O'Reilly (or in the case of my Samba Unleashed, Sams) take
complete control of the book's layout. Working with a mainstream publisher is
the ultimate WYSIWYM experience -- you as the author are responsible only for
content. Your publisher gives you a list
On Wed, 9 May 2007, Steve Litt wrote:
Big publishers like O'Reilly (or in the case of my Samba Unleashed, Sams)
take complete control of the book's layout. Working with a mainstream
publisher is the ultimate WYSIWYM experience -- you as the author are
responsible only for content. Your publisher
On Wednesday 09 May 2007 14:23, Rich Shepard wrote:
> On Wed, 9 May 2007, Steve Litt wrote:
> > Interesting article:
> > How to Spot a Word Processed Book
>
>What jumps out at me when I look at a processed word book is the uneven
> spacing between words on each l
On Wed, 9 May 2007, Steve Litt wrote:
Interesting article:
How to Spot a Word Processed Book
What jumps out at me when I look at a processed word book is the uneven
spacing between words on each line. The interletter and interword spacing on
a typeset page is much more subtle and the white
Interesting article:
How to Spot a Word Processed Book
http://www.midwestbookreview.com/bookbiz/advice/wordproc.htm
Did I ever mention how glad I am that you all created LyX? Thank you!
SteveT
Steve Litt
Author: Universal Troubleshooting Process books and courseware
http
37 matches
Mail list logo
