On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Daniel da Veiga <danieldave...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 15:16, Paul Hartman > <paul.hartman+gen...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 9:46 AM, Grant Edwards <gra...@visi.com> wrote: >>> On 2009-01-27, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckin...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Tuesday 27 January 2009 06:29:55 Grant Edwards wrote: >>>>> On 2009-01-26, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckin...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> > These are shared documents. I can't just change what they are >>>>> > based on my own preferences. >>>>> > >>>>> > I need an app that WRITES .docx. If Office 2007 is the only >>>>> > one that does it, so be it. But a workaround or another way to >>>>> > skin this cat is not what I need here. >>>>> >>>>> In my experience, finding an app that writes .docx isn't going >>>>> to be good enough if the documents are shared. If you're >>>>> exporting or importing something just one time, you can get >>>>> usually away with it after some minor fixing afterwards. >>>>> >>>>> But if it's a shared document and needs to be edited multiple >>>>> times by multiple people, you just can't get away with using >>>>> two different apps -- hell, not even two different versions of >>>>> MSWord. If you go back and forth many times, the document will >>>>> steadily "deteriorate" with each transition from one app to >>>>> another. At least that's my experience. >>>> >>>> That's pretty much the conclusion I came to as well. Thanks >>>> for sharing though :-) >>> >>> I realize I'm arguing a moot point, but using something like >>> .docx for shared documents that need to be maintained by >>> multiple people for a long time (more than a month or two) is a >>> dead awful choice. >>> >>> A plain ascii text file is probably the best choice for >>> portability and longevity. However, that suggestion's probably >>> not going to fly because it severly limits the amount of time >>> you can waste picking out eye-shatteringly ugly font >>> combinations and f*&king up margins, gutters, leading, and all >>> the other things people like to mess up rather than doing real >>> work. >>> >>> My next choice would probably be something like RTF. If you >>> get into a jam it's mostly-human-readible. If you limit >>> yourself to simple formatting features it's about as portable >>> and robust as anything you can find that allows the inclusion >>> of graphics. The support for vector graphics (e.g. SVG) is >>> pretty slim, but bit-mapped graphics support works pretty well. >>> >>> HTML would seem to be a good choice as well, but even more than >>> RTF you've got to limit what features you use. The only way to >>> keep the file from deteriorating into a mess is to avoid any of >>> "WYSIWYG" HTML editors. >> >> Google Apps is great for sharing documents.. You can even have >> multiple people editing in real-time and see each other's work. It's >> kind of fun, and all you need is a web browser. >> >> Again, irrelevant to the OP since he can't change his company's >> policy... but good to keep in mind for anyone who can :) >> > > I had this problem a while ago. I'm using CrossOffice with Word 2000 > and needed to open and change some docx. > Microsoft launched a compatibility pack for Office 2000, it works > great, I'm using it, you may find more info and some tips here: > > http://stuffem.wordpress.com/2007/07/14/quick-tip-reading-office-2007-docx-files/
Of course the compatiblity pack has the same problem, it does not magically give older Office the new features. If someone using Office 2007 actually uses new 2007 features, they will be lost when you open in the older Office version. On the other hand, if the person who created the document isn't using any 2007-exclusive features, they should not use the 2007 format, and then you could avoid this whole nightmare in the first place. Paul
