>* Craig Ringer <craig at postnewspapers.com.au> [2005-06-22 14:24:15 +0800]: > >> On Wed, 2005-06-22 at 08:04 +0200, Peter Nermander wrote: >> >> > These thoughts are very much like what I have, BUT working with >> > technical texts is not possible with plain text (where are my micro, >> > ohm, degree etc symbols in plain ascii??). In that case I would need >> > unicode text, and unfortunately I don't think authors would handle >> > that. >> >> Really? Unicode is very well supported these days, and should be the >> default of the majority of text editors. Additionally, I see few issues >> with importing OO.o files personally - a template could be supplied with >> all the styles they're allowed to use precreated. >> >> -- >> Craig Ringer > >I would like to second Craig's position on Unicode vs markup. I've run into an >issue with a multitude of special hyphens and spaces defined in the Unicode >standard already while working on the new file format. I will defend to the >last breath the current consensus position that it is more efficient to use >Unicode instead of inventing elements for all the special formatting cases or >reusing those from other markup systems. OOWriter importer is the tool for the >job here.
If we can get away without markup, then I think it is only going to be easier for everybody. I don't see how we could get people from all over the place markup their text just to help the DTP guys or to fit a specific workflow. It has to flow! The one thing we want to avoid is taking up the phone and start to explain to a writer how he/she should send his/her text! Louis > >Alex >_______________________________________________ >Scribus mailing list >Scribus at nashi.altmuehlnet.de >http://nashi.altmuehlnet.de/mailman/listinfo/scribus
