On 09/30/2007 01:13 AM, Steve Lamb wrote:
Stefan Monnier wrote:
My wife works in a field where most journals want Word files. So I thought
Anyone else getting this message over and over? Anyone else notice that a
news gateway somewhere seems to be broken? :(
Most definitely somethin
On Sat, Sep 29, 2007 at 11:13:27PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > My wife works in a field where most journals want Word files. So I thought
>
> Anyone else getting this message over and over? Anyone else notice that a
> news gateway somewhere seems to be broken? :(
Stefan Monnier wrote:
> My wife works in a field where most journals want Word files. So I thought
Anyone else getting this message over and over? Anyone else notice that a
news gateway somewhere seems to be broken? :(
--
Steve C. Lamb | But who decides what they dream?
> I write all my texts in latex, use JabRef/bibtex to manage references,
> subversion to keep track of things and to collaborate with coauthors,
> and -- if I need to submit to a journal misguided enough only to accept
> word, latex2rtf.
My wife works in a field where most journals want Word files
On Sun, Sep 30, 2007 at 01:30:15AM +0200, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > I write all my texts in latex, use JabRef/bibtex to manage references,
> > subversion to keep track of things and to collaborate with coauthors,
> > and -- if I need to submit to a journal misguided enough only to accept
> > word,
> I write all my texts in latex, use JabRef/bibtex to manage references,
> subversion to keep track of things and to collaborate with coauthors,
> and -- if I need to submit to a journal misguided enough only to accept
> word, latex2rtf.
My wife works in a field where most journals want Word files
> I write all my texts in latex, use JabRef/bibtex to manage references,
> subversion to keep track of things and to collaborate with coauthors,
> and -- if I need to submit to a journal misguided enough only to accept
> word, latex2rtf.
My wife works in a field where most journals want Word files
On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 10:21:04AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> One has to change the tool so if one is advocating LaTeX because of the
> merits of LaTeX over WYSIWYG one cannot offer up WYSIWYG as a front end for
> LaTeX without invalidating the argument that it is superior.
Humbug! It allows p
> I write all my texts in latex, use JabRef/bibtex to manage references,
> subversion to keep track of things and to collaborate with coauthors,
> and -- if I need to submit to a journal misguided enough only to accept
> word, latex2rtf.
My wife works in a field where most journals want Word files
On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 08:50:06AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> I was quickly disabused of that misconception and was perfectly fine to
> not have versioning via normal textual means. In fact I then switched my
> thinking to how to get OOo to save uncompressed or have the versioning
> software t
Ron Johnson wrote:
> In my case it's because it's because I have no idea what format
> Freemind and Storylines are in.
Oh, I understand why. The amusement came from the perception, correct or
not, that people would trust/respect my decision on two pieces and not the
third. I can assure you t
Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
> Sorry for this lapse of mine. I searched the thread for the terms
> "Freemind" and "Storylines" as they appear in the later mail. In the
> first mail they were called "Mindmap" and "Writer's Cafe" instead.
To explain I mistakenly called Freemind Mindmap as it is mi
Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 06:03:27AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
>
>> - From the original post, 08/22/07 15:26 UTC:
>> > o handle non-text data as well as some textual data. The main
>> > file that is going to change most often is an OOo document (odt).
>
> Here we hav
the table for replacement.
> You are aware that this mail of yours is the first and only one in the
> whole thread that ever mentioned "Freemind" or "Storylines"? You never
> stated that these were your requirements.
Ok, look at the subject line. It reads,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 09/27/07 01:58, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
>> Steve Lamb wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> To my mind the fact that I said it would be nice to have versioning that
>>> worked with OOo, Freemind and Writer's Cafe/Storylines implied that O
On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 06:03:27AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> - From the original post, 08/22/07 15:26 UTC:
> > o handle non-text data as well as some textual data. The main
> > file that is going to change most often is an OOo document (odt).
Here we have the source of some of the confusi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/26/07 15:33, Steve Lamb wrote:
> David Brodbeck wrote:
>> Maybe I'm confusing threads. I thought one of his requirements was
>> searchability and version control. Version control tools don't work
>> well with OOo because, by design, it produces
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/27/07 01:58, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
> Steve Lamb wrote:
> [snip]
>> To my mind the fact that I said it would be nice to have versioning that
>> worked with OOo, Freemind and Writer's Cafe/Storylines implied that OOo,
>> Freemind and Write
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Benjamin A'Lee wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 04:16:06PM +0200, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
>> (Unfortunately the way from word to LaTeX is not nearly that efficient
>> if not impossible.)
>
> Not at all. IIRC, Abiword can both import DOC and export
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steve Lamb wrote:
[snip]
> To my mind the fact that I said it would be nice to have versioning that
> worked with OOo, Freemind and Writer's Cafe/Storylines implied that OOo,
> Freemind and Writer's Cafe/Storylines were not on the table for replace
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steve Lamb wrote:
> Acknowledging the other person's position and cluing them in that the
> advice is for the broader audience of the list means the OP can clearly see it
> isn't directly solely at them and let it slide. Otherwise the perception i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steve Lamb wrote:
> Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
>> If there is a problem than this: you don't just take the advice, you
>> claim that the advice is *unsuitable* to your problem, which it is not.
>
> Johannes, who are you to judge the suitability of
On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 04:16:06PM +0200, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
> (Unfortunately the way from word to LaTeX is not nearly that efficient
> if not impossible.)
Not at all. IIRC, Abiword can both import DOC and export LaTeX.
On the other hand, if you want *nice* LaTeX, you'll have to try a bit
* Johannes Wiedersich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070926 08:28]:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Russell L. Harris wrote:
> > So now the problem becomes how to convert the HTML produced by HeVeA
> > into RTF or another format which M$ Word can read -- preferably within
> > the Debia
On Sep 26, 2007, at 2:11 PM, Rob Mahurin wrote:
You're concerned (I think) about not being able to merge changes in
OpenOffice's data files using revision control, because those files
aren't straightforward text. Someone else mentioned Abiword, which
saves uncompressed XML; but there's metadata
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 10:11:31PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Rob Mahurin wrote:
> > I know you've settled on OOo, but it's worth pointing out that TeX is
> > a simple language if you're writing a simple document. In particular
> > you are already writing valid plain TeX in your email. Copy the a
David Brodbeck wrote:
> Maybe I'm confusing threads. I thought one of his requirements was
> searchability and version control. Version control tools don't work
> well with OOo because, by design, it produces opaque binary files.
You're not confusing the two. Yes, it was listed as a "requir
Ron Johnson wrote:
> Since I don't think we will change each other's mind regarding this,
> I think it should be dropped.
This is D-U, you can't do that!
--
Steve C. Lamb | But who decides what they dream?
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | And dream I do...
Ken Irving wrote:
> That's a good point. Someone posts a question, and a lot of views and
> ideas may be presented, whether relevant to the OP's question or not.
> The OP doesn't "own" the thread that results, and attempts to keep the
> discussion focused may degenerate into what's perceived of as
Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
> If there is a problem than this: you don't just take the advice, you
> claim that the advice is *unsuitable* to your problem, which it is not.
Johannes, who are you to judge the suitability of any particular tool to
*my problem*. Part of that problem is me, my wor
On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 02:28:49PM -0500, Mumia W.. wrote:
>
> However, the discussion of options for long-document creation is
> informative to some people.
That's a good point. Someone posts a question, and a lot of views and
ideas may be presented, whether relevant to the OP's question or not
On 09/26/2007 11:40 AM, Steve Lamb wrote:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I do not consider converting to word a desirable feature,
I do and have stated such.
You asked for suggestions. TeX is the solution I use in a
similar situation, and I offered it up to you, mentioning som
On Sep 26, 2007, at 6:10 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I disagree. I use latex for some articles which are submitted to
scientific journals, but for the type of writing which Steve has
described, Oo.org is fine, with no learning curve, and he can
output it
to .doc or.rtf as necessary.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/26/07 12:06, Peter Robinson wrote:
[snip]
>
> I write all my texts in latex, use JabRef/bibtex to manage references,
> subversion to keep track of things and to collaborate with coauthors,
> and -- if I need to submit to a journal misguided enou
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/26/07 12:21, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
>> You're saying that only stringent proponents get to define the usage
>> parameters of a system.
>
> No. But their usage parameters are the only one that change significantly
> from what
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steve Lamb wrote:
> Your suggestion, no. Johannes' constant harping, yes. Especially when he
> starts engaging in strawman fallacies, ignoring things I am saying and
> flipping arguments my mixing unrelated things together.
Sorry again, I never
Ron Johnson wrote:
> You're saying that only stringent proponents get to define the usage
> parameters of a system.
No. But their usage parameters are the only one that change significantly
from what I'm working with now. It's a matter of "drop the WYSIWYG and do the
work in LaTeX" vs. "Save
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 26 Sep, Peter Robinson wrote:
...
If you write in latex you can always convert to RTF via latex2rtf,
which in my experience works excellently. If needed, it is no big
deal to convert this to word format. It is definitely worth the
effort to learn lat
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/26/07 09:00, Steve Lamb wrote:
[snip]
>
> But does not fit the requirement of easily converted to an acceptable
> format or being able to work visually with it. No, I am not counting LyX and
> the like because to suggest a WYSIWYG editor fo
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I do not consider converting to word a desirable feature,
I do and have stated such.
> You asked for suggestions. TeX is the solution I use in a
> similar situation, and I offered it up to you, mentioning some of the
> advantages I see in that solu
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 06:54:24 -0700, Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Neil Watson wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 10:11:31PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
>>> Furthermore I fail to see this supposed "don't think about the
>>> formatting" simplicity when I can't even write a simple financial
>>>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steve Lamb wrote:
>
> Yeah, and vim is a WYSIWYG editor. Now you're arguing just to be a prick.
No, it's you who is arguing just to be a prick. I told you before, that
from your previous e-mail I got the impression that you don't like to
type th
Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
> It does not retain the formatting in the sense that it retains page and
> line breaks. But it does retain the structure and italics, etc. ie. all
> that appears to be important in your case.
Or margins. That is not inconsiderable.
>>> I didn't want to do hair sp
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steve Lamb wrote:
> 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
Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
> Steve Lamb wrote:
>> Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
>> OOo -> Save As .doc
>> LaTex -> Export to HTML, find an HTML to .doc converter, hope all the
>> formatting goes through (which it won't).
> No: LaTeX -> Export to HTML; open html in OOo -> Save as .doc.
> One
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steve Lamb wrote:
> Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
> OOo -> Save As .doc
> LaTex -> Export to HTML, find an HTML to .doc converter, hope all the
> formatting goes through (which it won't).
No: LaTeX -> Export to HTML; open html in OOo -> Save as
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
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 Wo
Neil Watson wrote:
> Please approach this subject in a more subjective manner. I was
> suggesting that until you gain experience with both manners of
> document creation you can hardly form an accurate conclusion as to what
> best suits your needs.
Until you've tried a vacuum you can't say yo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steve Lamb wrote:
> Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
>> I hope I didn't state that you are wrong, that's not my intention.
>
> By refuting my personal opinion so emphatically even if you haven't said
> the word the sentiment is clear.
>
>> - From my pe
-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 fro
Please approach this subject in a more subjective manner. I was
suggesting that until you gain experience with both manners of
document creation you can hardly form an accurate conclusion as to what
best suits your needs.
--
Neil Watson | Debian Linux
System Administrator| Uptime
Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
> I hope I didn't state that you are wrong, that's not my intention.
By refuting my personal opinion so emphatically even if you haven't said
the word the sentiment is clear.
> - From my personal experience LaTeX *is the tool* when it comes to
You personal expe
Neil Watson wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 10:11:31PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
>> Furthermore I fail to see this supposed "don't think about the
>> formatting" simplicity when I can't even write a simple financial value
>> without resorting to escapes!
> Hardly any different from resorting to m
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steve Lamb wrote:
> Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
>> Of course you are free to use whatever seems suitable to you. But don't
>> take it personal, when people advise you to do otherwise.
>
> It is personal when I state quite emphatically that I do not
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 10:11:31PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
Furthermore I fail to see this supposed "don't think about the formatting"
simplicity when I can't even write a simple financial value without resorting
to escapes!
Hardly any different from resorting to mouse clicks. However, you
Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
> Of course you are free to use whatever seems suitable to you. But don't
> take it personal, when people advise you to do otherwise.
It is personal when I state quite emphatically that I do not feel it is
the best tool for me, personally. At that point any reply st
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Russell L. Harris wrote:
> So now the problem becomes how to convert the HTML produced by HeVeA
> into RTF or another format which M$ Word can read -- preferably within
> the Debian environment, and preferably with open-source software.
> In another ho
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steve Lamb wrote:
> David Brodbeck wrote:
>> As long as you realize it probably won't look the same to the other
>> person, unless they have the same Word version, the same operating
>> system, and the same fonts.
>
> It will look similar enough.
On 26 Sep, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> ...
>
> If you write in latex you can always convert to RTF via latex2rtf,
> which in my experience works excellently. If needed, it is no big
> deal to convert this to word format. It is definitely worth the
> effort to learn latex.
> cheers, peter
>
>
On 25 Sep 2007, David Brodbeck wrote:
>
> On Sep 25, 2007, at 8:01 AM, Steve Lamb wrote:
>
>> Ron Johnson wrote:
>>> PDF?
>>
>> Haven't seen it as an acceptable format for submission, no.
>
> Some on-demand publishers use it. For example, Lulu.com.
>
>
>
I've just published a book via Lulu. I
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 04:55:36PM -0500, Russell L. Harris wrote:
> Occasionally while writing, I save the document, switch to the
> command-line window and execute LaTeX, then look over the xdvi
> displays (which are updated automatically whenever LaTeX is run).
I can avoid the switch to the cl
* Peter Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070926 00:35]:
> If you write in latex you can always convert to RTF via latex2rtf, which in
> my experience works excellently. If needed, it is no big deal to convert
> this to word format. It is definitely worth the effort to learn latex.
This afternoon, o
Steve Lamb wrote:
Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
The output is PostScript
so I kept a copy of GhostView (gv) running (watching the file) and
whenever I wanted to see how things looked, just ran lout on my file to
the same output file name.
Yeahhh, no thanks. I don't like coding HTML with
Rob Mahurin wrote:
> I know you've settled on OOo, but it's worth pointing out that TeX is
> a simple language if you're writing a simple document. In particular
> you are already writing valid plain TeX in your email. Copy the above
> (without the >'s) into file.txt; change /'thinking'/ to {\it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/25/07 19:27, Steve Lamb wrote:
[snip]
>
> Am I writing a book? Yes.
>
> Am I writing a technical book? No!
>
> I am writing fiction. I have no in-line graphics, complex font changes
> for examples, silly little icons to denote s
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 05:27:02PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Good thing that what I'm writing is not at all complex. The two most
> complex things are italics and indent-first-line.
[...]
> Am I writing a book? Yes.
>
> Am I writing a technical book? No!
>
> I am writing ficti
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/25/07 19:11, David Brodbeck wrote:
[snip]
> changes. About the time we hit the 650 page mark, Word started
> corrupting the file and it became impossible to go through more than a
> few edit/save cycles before the file became unreadable and we h
David Brodbeck wrote:
> As long as you realize it probably won't look the same to the other
> person, unless they have the same Word version, the same operating
> system, and the same fonts.
It will look similar enough.
> It's rare that someone sends me a complicated Word file and I'm able
>
On Sep 25, 2007, at 5:11 PM, David Brodbeck wrote:
On Sep 25, 2007, at 4:31 PM, Steve Lamb wrote:
No, my issue is that I have some formatting I want to be there
and I
need to be able to express that formatting in a way that will be
accepted by the broadest scope of submission requiremen
On Sep 25, 2007, at 4:31 PM, Steve Lamb wrote:
No, my issue is that I have some formatting I want to be there
and I
need to be able to express that formatting in a way that will be
accepted by the broadest scope of submission requirements. Working in
ODT and then either printing it and ma
Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
> The output is PostScript
> so I kept a copy of GhostView (gv) running (watching the file) and
> whenever I wanted to see how things looked, just ran lout on my file to
> the same output file name.
Yeahhh, no thanks. I don't like coding HTML with the produce and peek
"Douglas A. Tutty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> using WordPerfect. When I switched to Linux, I was overwhelmed with the
> thought of learning LaTex. So I tried Lout. I found it great after a
> while. Think of it as a stripped-down LaTex.
"... written by a language lawyer."
-Miles
--
It wasn
On Sep 25, 2007, at 8:01 AM, Steve Lamb wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
PDF?
Haven't seen it as an acceptable format for submission, no.
Some on-demand publishers use it. For example, Lulu.com.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Cont
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 07:30:35AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Neil Watson wrote:
> > With TeX and LaTeX and its ilk the templates actually work. I can use
> > the same template for all of my reports and they always look the same.
> > There are no annoying format inconsistencies that are so common
* Jochen Schulz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070925 16:07]:
> Steve Lamb:
>> they're robust but I have always seen their use tied to another
>> editor. Since an outside editor is required it is my impression
>> that there is no WYSIWYG, no way to get a basic view of how it
>> might look printed outside o
Steve Lamb:
>
> To be fair I am operating out a large measure of ignorance.
:)
> One of my
> main concerns is that the typesetting languages are languages. I'm sure
> they're robust but I have always seen their use tied to another editor. Since
> an outside editor is required it is my
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> These people do not accept PDF? wow.
I surmise it is because they have word processors for document
modification during the editing process. PDF is mainly a display format, not
an editable format. Seems incongruous with accepting printed submissions but
fro
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 07:30:35 -0700, Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Neil Watson wrote:
>> With TeX and LaTeX and its ilk the templates actually work. I can
>> use the same template for all of my reports and they always look the
>> same. There are no annoying format inconsistencies that a
Kumar Appaiah wrote:
> I am actually a bit surprised. Numerous scientific books are written
> in TeX. In fact, Dr. Knuth's own books are typeset in TeX, which is
> what eh created TeX for. Besides, I am really surprised publishers
> won't want TeX, since a lot of books I've read have acklowledged t
Ron Johnson wrote:
> PDF?
Haven't seen it as an acceptable format for submission, no.
--
Steve C. Lamb | But who decides what they dream?
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | And dream I do...
---+-
sig
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 07:30:35AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
Also the end result of my labor will be to send this out to be published.
I have seen many publishers take submissions in Word, plain text or printed
out.
This is another good thing about TeX. You can publish your document in
many
> Neil Watson wrote:
> I have seen many publishers take submissions in Word, plain text or printed
> out. I've yet to see one accept LaTeX.
Publishers of scientific journals accept LaTeX, most even provide a
style file so that the document is formatted according to the specific
journals require
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/25/07 09:30, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Neil Watson wrote:
>> With TeX and LaTeX and its ilk the templates actually work. I can use
>> the same template for all of my reports and they always look the same.
>> There are no annoying format inconsistencie
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 07:30:35AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> To be fair I am operating out a large measure of ignorance. One of my
> main concerns is that the typesetting languages are languages. I'm sure
> they're robust but I have always seen their use tied to another editor. Since
> an o
Neil Watson wrote:
> With TeX and LaTeX and its ilk the templates actually work. I can use
> the same template for all of my reports and they always look the same.
> There are no annoying format inconsistencies that are so common with
> Word and OpenOffice.
To be fair I am operating out a lar
86 matches
Mail list logo
