Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
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.
(Unfortunately the way from word to LaTeX is not nearly that efficient
if not impossible.)
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.
> The most amusing part is that people have
> suggested using a WYSIWYG editor for LaTeX... and use LaTeX because the
> WYSIWYG editor called OOo is bad because it is WYSIWYG. A-wha!?
No. The reason for suggesting WYSIWYG editors was that you said you are
not comfortable with other editors. The rationale behind it is that
those editors will store your files in LaTeX-format, which is plain text
and *extremely* suitable for version control -- opposed to OOo.
Johannes
NB: Why don't *I* like to write texts in WYSIWYG?
- - the fonts I use for the editor are optimized for (my) readability on
my screen at my resolution; the fonts I use for the printout are
optimized for the printout
- - the printed text is black and white; the computer screen is colour. My
editor shows colour highlighting on screen, but will produce b/w output.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFG+mmmC1NzPRl9qEURAgBXAJ9rzd4+Uj+A+Rx7Yu8Jrp5d8gwzqACfYZOy
E2y3NhcURuG8FPzqc6QUW3s=
=0lus
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: