Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[Chris Bannister]

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 people who have not yet seen the light to access its
features in a familiar way until they at last see the light and turf the
WSYIWG THINGAMAJIG out the window.

-- 
Chris.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[Dave Thayer]

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 to handle OOo documents.  But if I can't get it versioned that's no
> big deal.
> 

This guy has a makefile which handles ODF packing and unpacking for
use in a versioning system:

http://clarencedang.blogspot.com/2006/12/another-script-revision-controlled.html


HTH 

dt

-- 
Dave Thayer   | Whenever you read a good book, it's like the 
Denver, Colorado USA  | author is right there, in the room talking to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | you, which is why I don't like to read 
  | good books. - Jack Handey "Deep Thoughts"


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[Steve Lamb]

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 that there aren't many alternatives to Writer's
Cafe/Storylines as it is the only software of its kind I have found to run on
Linux.  There's maybe 2 for Freemind and neither is, AFAIK, any better at
being versioning friendly than Freemind is.

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | But who decides what they dream?
   PGP Key: 8B6E99C5   |   And dream I do...
---+-



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[Steve Lamb]

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 mindmapping
software.  Storylines is a portion of a suite of software to help an author
keep track of the elements of fictional writing which is called Writer's Cafe.
 It would be what Writer is to OOo.

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | But who decides what they dream?
   PGP Key: 8B6E99C5   |   And dream I do...
---+-



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[Steve Lamb]

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 have the source of some of the confusion.  He's already specfied
> odt _and_ some non-textual data.  This implies something other than
> simply some italics.  

> Since we don't know what type of non-text data, we don't know if it
> needs versioning too or how to do it.  We've already determined that we
> don't know how to version odt.

You snipped the relevant portion of that requirement.  Freemind (stated
mistakenly as Mindmap) and Storylines files were the examples I gave for
non-textual.  I started out the thread thinking that OOo could be versioned
since I knew it was nothing more than an XML document.  I did not know at the
time it was compressed which would render it non-text to a versioning software.

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 to handle OOo documents.  But if I can't get it versioned that's no
big deal.

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | But who decides what they dream?
   PGP Key: 8B6E99C5   |   And dream I do...
---+-



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[Steve Lamb]

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 Writer's Cafe/Storylines were not on 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, "OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX
(Was: Tool for document management)".  That means, in order:
Off-Topic
"Choice of OOo and LaTex"
Previous Was
Tool for document management.

I started the branch because I felt it was straying sufficiently from the
main topic.  I did so in MSGID <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.  You can read it
here: 

But that's not the first message I posted since it was a split from
another thread titled "Tool for document management" which *I* started not
only here but on the Ubuntu list.  That MSGID is <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and can be seen here: 


You'll note that I am the original poster and that my third requirement,
verbatim, was this:
"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).  I'll also be storing
any related files including Mindmap files (mm) and Writer's Cafe files."

The fourth requirement was this:
"o version might be nice in case I want to back out of large portions of the
document or refer to previous verbage I had removed and want to reconsider."

So no, Johannes, I am quite aware of what I originally wrote and what my
original requirements are.  The only difference is that I mistakenly called
Freemind Mindmap.  However it is mind mapping software and I did later correct
myself.

> I find it very amusing, that you find it amusing that other people can't
> read your mind. It amazing how efficient technology is nowadays in
> carrying your ideas quickly over the Atlantic; all you have to do is
> this: type them into an e-mail. Don't expect that they float without
> this little effort. ;-)

I think the URLs posted above clearly show that I did make the effort and
that I was not expecting people to do anything more than reading an email.
While I do not expect people to read every message of mine and do understand
people will jump in in the middle of a conversation I do expect the courtesy
of them doing their homework prior to calling me a liar on something I did or
did not claim to say.  I am by and large an honest person and don't go around
intentionally misrepresenting what I have or have not said previously.

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | But who decides what they dream?
   PGP Key: 8B6E99C5   |   And dream I do...
---+-



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[Johannes Wiedersich]

-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 OOo,
>>> Freemind and Writer's Cafe/Storylines were not on 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.
> 
> His original post *did* mention them.

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.

Johannes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFG+78eC1NzPRl9qEURAvxKAJ9apiZirtgY5Wt/z34+mMza0VmhLQCfaoqs
stjxVyELvM9Hn648WZCBXts=
=jNoj
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[Douglas A. Tutty]

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 confusion.  He's already specfied
odt _and_ some non-textual data.  This implies something other than
simply some italics.  

Since we don't know what type of non-text data, we don't know if it
needs versioning too or how to do it.  We've already determined that we
don't know how to version odt.

So: if versioning isn't required, then what is the point of this thread?
If versioning is required, then odt isn't a possibility and people have
recommended LaTex as a suitable alternative that can incorporate
"non-text data" if that means graphics or e.g. formulae.  

The only other solution to the versioning of something that you can't
diff would be a full-fledged database with full logging.  Check out the
most recent version, edit it, then post it back as a new record.  Since
these are files, they'd be 'huge' items in the database.

I don't know.  I've never used Word or OO.  Prior to LaTex it was lout;
both text markup.  Prior to that it was WordPerfect on OS/2 that did its
own versioning, including graphics (since they were vector graphics, the
vertices were what was stored).  

Doug.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[Ron Johnson]

-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 opaque binary files.
> 
> You're not confusing the two.  Yes, it was listed as a "requirement" but
> it was more of a "nice to have" requirement and not an absolute one.  I admit
> that I didn't do an adequate job in listing all my requirements as
> requirements and separating out nice-to-haves as such.
> 
> 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 replacement.
> 
> Of course in writing this explanation for you I do find it mildly amusing
> that lots of people seemed to have latched onto versioning as an absolute
> requirement, feel obligated to change one of the tools I am using to fit that
> perception yet have not offered up any replacement tools for Freemind or
> Storylines.  ;)

In my case it's because it's because I have no idea what format
Freemind and Storylines are in.

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFG+47WS9HxQb37XmcRAmcRAJ4oDmbOIiKgAuK0fWQIHjs8kuIafgCeI61N
vTKNkRaAgKcl4r7M7f6RlDI=
=jkwk
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[Ron Johnson]

-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 Writer's Cafe/Storylines were not on 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.

His original post *did* mention them.

>> Of course in writing this explanation for you I do find it mildly amusing
>> that lots of people seemed to have latched onto versioning as an absolute
>> requirement, feel obligated to change one of the tools I am using to fit that
>> perception yet have not offered up any replacement tools for Freemind or
>> Storylines.  ;)
> 
> I find it very amusing, that you find it amusing that other people can't
> read your mind. It amazing how efficient technology is nowadays in
> carrying your ideas quickly over the Atlantic; all you have to do is
> this: type them into an e-mail. Don't expect that they float without
> this little effort. ;-)


- 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).
  > I'll also be storing any related files including Mindmap files
  > (mm) and Writer's Cafe files.

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFG+43/S9HxQb37XmcRAhfoAJ0QXHDPSJQ9rhKDCROXPQ/Xy6HPrACg6hTS
fvjbIlNx3CQINKuHfZXQsmM=
=6iRa
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[Johannes Wiedersich]

-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 LaTeX.
> 
> On the other hand, if you want *nice* LaTeX, you'll have to try a bit
> harder; Abiword seems to try to preserve as much of the formatting as
> possible, rather than just letting TeX deal with it.

The last time I tried, the result was very poor and didn't work for me.
I don't expect that such a conversion is 'perfect', but it was much more
effort to turn abiword's latex into 'reasonable' latex than to start
from plain text.

My humble opinion,

Johannes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFG+15cC1NzPRl9qEURAiLQAJ9FydalsMTD+M+9wSYPLbghWxInSQCfUUJ4
ZXWbqAB4Znvj6n089v1Zylk=
=EtFB
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[Johannes Wiedersich]

-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 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.

> Of course in writing this explanation for you I do find it mildly amusing
> that lots of people seemed to have latched onto versioning as an absolute
> requirement, feel obligated to change one of the tools I am using to fit that
> perception yet have not offered up any replacement tools for Freemind or
> Storylines.  ;)

I find it very amusing, that you find it amusing that other people can't
read your mind. It amazing how efficient technology is nowadays in
carrying your ideas quickly over the Atlantic; all you have to do is
this: type them into an e-mail. Don't expect that they float without
this little effort. ;-)

Johannes


-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFG+1R+C1NzPRl9qEURAljdAJ0dqJfd/bsyXHz6/hItkjrNna/w/QCfdCFA
pE+rXPNleGvppyHYVsstRVo=
=6XiX
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[Benjamin A'Lee]

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
harder; Abiword seems to try to preserve as much of the formatting as
possible, rather than just letting TeX deal with it.

-- 
Benjamin A'Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://subvert.org.uk/~bma/


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[Russell L. Harris]

* 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 Debian environment, and preferably with open-source software.
> > In another hour searching with Google, I came across only one potential
> > solution.
> 
> I havn't yet tried with HeVeA output, but OOo is quite capable of
> handling html code. It can also export to .doc
> 
> Johannes

Thanks, Johannes.  I did not realize that OOo could read HTML.  

I just tried OOo on the HeVeA output (which is claimed to conform to
the HTML standard), and it works reasonably well.  

The only real problem is that some of the characters are rendered by
code such as:

A0; 2013; 2014; 2026; 201C; 201D;

So, unless OOo has a switch to enable these characters to be rendered
properly, I need to do a search-and-replace on them before converting
to M$ Word .doc format.

RLH


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[David Brodbeck]

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 in there too, which might
not merge correctly.  It looks like Abisource offering revision  
control

for collaborative writing, http://collaborate.abisource.com/faq/, but
that's probably not what you want either.


He's made it clear that he doesn't want to use anything but OOo.  So  
the focus of the thread discussion so far would appear to be  
completely wrong; he apparently has a very specific desire for a  
version control tool that works within OOo.  I'm not sure such a  
thing exists, so he may be up a creek without a paddle.




--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[Rob Mahurin]

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 above
> > (without the >'s) into file.txt; change /'thinking'/ to {\it thinking}
> > and "saying" to ``saying''; type "pdftex file.txt" and "\end".
> > file.pdf looks like http://sns.phys.utk.edu/~mahurin/du/09-25.pdf,
> > which I think is what you're after.
> 
> Uh, no.  It's more than that.  You're forgetting loading in the templates
> and the entire structure.  

Sorry I wasn't clearer.  I made the output linked above using /plain/ TeX;
the only \command was the italics.  LaTeX is a set of templates and macros
for typesetting structured documents with TeX, which it sounds like you
don't need.  When I was writing MLA-formatted papers as an undergraduate I
used plain TeX like this and was pretty happy with it.

Your other complaints, though, are all perfectly reasonable.  It sounds
like you want to write your fiction using a word processor, not a
typesetting language.  Great --- that's why the word processor was
invented, after all.

Let me see if I remember what you want:

1. revision control, including
- resurrect erased text
- merge changes from two computers
2. shallow learning curve, so you can focus on the writing
3. export to .doc that preserves italicization.

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 in there too, which might
not merge correctly.  It looks like Abisource offering revision control
for collaborative writing, http://collaborate.abisource.com/faq/, but
that's probably not what you want either.  These options give you #2 and
#3, maybe #1, or maybe a broken document after a certain level of
complexity is reached.

Many of the replies have been about TeX, its macro packages, etc.  You
complain that gives you #1 at the expense of #2 and #3.

You mentioned you're not afraid of programming, so here's an idea.
You could just write in plain text, and use /italics/ the same you
have on this list.  You said the publishers you've spoken to accept
plain text; that additional markup is easy enough to read.

If you /must/ send someone a .doc, you could write a Word macro (or a
macro in a program that produces Word files) to match and italicize text.
For that matter, a three-line perl (or whatever) script could

1. escape TeX's special characters, $%&#\{}^_~
2. replace / with "\it " (italicize) or "\rm " (roman) in alternation
3. run pdfTeX on the output

giving you something nice to print out.  You should call the converter
SLIPTT, Steve Lamb's Italicized Plain Text Typesetter.
Don't want to print?  Publisher can read plain text?  You're all set.

The fact is that any document formatting specification is going to be in
SOME language, whether that language is embedded in the file format by
the word processor, marked up by the author, or whatever.  Most of the
open-source revision control systems are for marked-up text, or code,
where the author can tell if the merged text is right or not.  File
formats that warn "don't change this file manually," as AbiWord and
OpenOffice do, probably require specialized version control software
that's aware of those formats.  The conclusion of this thread seems to
be that debian users are using source-controlled LaTeX markup, and that
there's not yet a good solution for source-controlled word processor
output.  I'll be interested to know what you decide to do.

Good luck with your writing.

Rob

-- 
Rob Mahurin
Dept. of Physics & Astronomy
University of Tennessee phone:  865 207 2594
Knoxville, TN  37996email:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[Steve Lamb]

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 "requirement" but
it was more of a "nice to have" requirement and not an absolute one.  I admit
that I didn't do an adequate job in listing all my requirements as
requirements and separating out nice-to-haves as such.

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 replacement.

Of course in writing this explanation for you I do find it mildly amusing
that lots of people seemed to have latched onto versioning as an absolute
requirement, feel obligated to change one of the tools I am using to fit that
perception yet have not offered up any replacement tools for Freemind or
Storylines.  ;)

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | But who decides what they dream?
   PGP Key: 8B6E99C5   |   And dream I do...
---+-



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[Steve Lamb]

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...
---+-



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[David Brodbeck]

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.


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.


If I'm conflating two threads, than I apologize.




--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[Ron Johnson]

-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 I'm working with now.  It's a matter of "drop the WYSIWYG and do the
> work in LaTeX" vs. "Save in a different format."  Saving in a different format
> does not fundamentally change the tool.  It would be like saying if Word
> were able to save in ODT it would be ok to use Word instead of OOo because of
> the file format it saves in.
> 
> 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.

And I just *totally* disagree with that line of thinking.

Since I don't think we will change each other's mind regarding this,
I think it should be dropped.

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFG+pgrS9HxQb37XmcRAuzkAKCLRPx176XSLl6sEZ8nq6UlCNXJwACeJ/eS
UI77gThx0AW3XCM2pAS8N7g=
=+c/y
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[Steve Lamb]

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 in a different format."  Saving in a different format
does not fundamentally change the tool.  It would be like saying if Word
were able to save in ODT it would be ok to use Word instead of OOo because of
the file format it saves in.

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.

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | But who decides what they dream?
   PGP Key: 8B6E99C5   |   And dream I do...
---+-



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[Peter Robinson]

[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 latex.
cheers, peter





 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.  If he wants to have an index, or
bibliograpy, footnotes, etc. in the book, it´s definitely worth learning
to use latex or some variant.

 If revision history, etc, is necessary or really desirable, using 
lyx and subversion, as other posters suggested, might be a good way to

go; I haven´t used lyx myself for several years, so I´m dont´t know how
easy it would be for him to use.
  


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.
Gone are the days of hundreds of different versions of a manuscript as 
separate word files. Gone are the days when EndNote kept "loosing" my 
references or word kept screwing up almost anything.
Things have become simply EASIER and I have more time to do real work, 
as opposed to secretarial/editorial chores.

The time I invested to learn all this has been repaid at least 50 times.
Even if Steve or others have different needs, I submit that they too 
will benefit from latex/SVN etc for document management, the cost of 
rethinking a few work steps is truly minor..


just my 2c :- }
-peter


-Chris 



|   Christopher Judd, Ph. D.  [EMAIL PROTECTED]   |



IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments may contain
confidential or sensitive information which is, or may be, legally
privileged or otherwise protected by law from further disclosure.  It
is intended only for the addressee.  If you received this in error or
from someone who was not authorized to send it to you, please do not
distribute, copy or use it or any attachments.  Please notify the
sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this from your
system. Thank you for your cooperation.



  



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[Ron Johnson]

-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 for LaTeX who's stringent
> proponents eschew WYSIWYG is to put oneself right back at the same level as
> any other tool.

You're saying that only stringent proponents get to define the usage
parameters of a system.

Highly invalid logic.  The kind I'd expect from political activists.

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFG+o6kS9HxQb37XmcRAsQOAKCMeS1VrglmSMNG+p9EuIF3BElp/QCfYUpC
1rcdLRW1Bjkk8i5egI9iqEk=
=/oAE
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[Johannes Wiedersich]

-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 things like '{\it}' too often. Since you also mentioned

> I want to work on this document visually, not conceptually

The solution that came to my humble mind was to suggest a WYSIWYG that
would feature shortcut keys. There are other solutions as well. Sorry,
for not realizing from the beginning that your vim-fu is so strong.

Johannes

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFG+oHJC1NzPRl9qEURAiTPAJ9pEuvp9ajdOOmT7fvr0hoXHtB/qACfc2CV
ExERAuwdYCTO90POebBwJ0s=
=PLMA
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[Steve Lamb]

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 splitting. I just used the example to convince
>>> you that you don't require to type '\textit{}' all the times you need
>>> italics.
>> Which I never said.

> Well you complained about:
>> You're also ignoring that CNTL-I is a tad shorter
>> than {\it}, esp. since \ is way out of the way of my normal typing habits.

Yes, because {\it} is \textit{}.  I see it now!

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | But who decides what they dream?
   PGP Key: 8B6E99C5   |   And dream I do...
---+-



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[Johannes Wiedersich]

-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 be happy to let you write the book for me.  :P
> 
>> LaTeX, especially without formulas or too complicated formatting, is
>> easily converted to many different acceptable formats: HTML, pdf, plain
>> text, etc.
> 
> "Acceptable" by whom?  My end goal is to get published.  None of those
> formats are acceptable for that goal.
> 
>> The route via HTML to OOo and .doc is straightforward for the
>> situation you describe.
> 
> No, it's not.  It does not retain all the formatting.

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.

>> I didn't want to do hair splitting. I just used the example to convince
>> you that you don't require to type '\textit{}' all the times you need
>> italics.
> 
> Which I never said.

Well you complained about:
> You're also ignoring that CNTL-I is a tad shorter
> than {\it}, esp. since \ is way out of the way of my normal typing habits.

>> texmacs is not emacs! See www.texmacs.org.
> 
> Technically you're right.  From the FAQ, first question:
> 
> * is a free scientific text editor, which was both inspired by TeX and GNU 
> Emacs.
> 
> Yea, scientific text is what I am writing here.  Inspired by Emacs.
> You're out of touch.

As said before, you can use it for non-scientific text just as you want.
It may be inspired by emacs, but is totally different: appearence,
usage, output format, etc. I wasn't focussing about technical
differences, it is fundamentally different.

Johannes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFG+n9XC1NzPRl9qEURAlYQAJ0QIim7QMBEQ2gSR2jhSkILISPgzQCfb5rn
yfEs2Q2Uj5BHmeOOTYmmtGY=
=AfYZ
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[Steve Lamb]

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 additional step.

Did you miss "hope all formatting goes through (which it won't)"?  I'm
betting you did.

> The last time I tried, an export from OOo to latex didn't work for me.
> Same sad story here.

Which isn't a concern of mine.

>> I never said that, either.  I said that for this purpose I wish to think
>> about it visually, not conceptually.  My vim-fu is quite strong, thanks.

> So you could just use a bit of key mapping to solve your problem of
> typing too much \textit{}.

Yeah, and vim is a WYSIWYG editor.  Now you're arguing just to be a prick.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[Johannes Wiedersich]

-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 .doc.
One additional step.

> That is not simple, that is not efficient and that is not reasonable.
> 
>> (Unfortunately the way from word to LaTeX is not nearly that efficient
>> if not impossible.)
> 
> Good thing I'm not using Word then, a point that most people gloss over.

The last time I tried, an export from OOo to latex didn't work for me.
Same sad story here.

[snip]

>> No. The reason for suggesting WYSIWYG editors was that you said you are
>> not comfortable with other editors.
> 
> I never said that, either.  I said that for this purpose I wish to think
> about it visually, not conceptually.  My vim-fu is quite strong, thanks.

So you could just use a bit of key mapping to solve your problem of
typing too much \textit{}.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFG+n2ZC1NzPRl9qEURAj/+AJ9u1n/6zVPAW9Ad7UJOC+rSOJx/tQCfaAW2
E/F9kETn9/2ORHcj/6riCHE=
=uBK/
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[Steve Lamb]

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 formulas or too complicated formatting, is
> easily converted to many different acceptable formats: HTML, pdf, plain
> text, etc.

"Acceptable" by whom?  My end goal is to get published.  None of those
formats are acceptable for that goal.

> The route via HTML to OOo and .doc is straightforward for the
> situation you describe.

No, it's not.  It does not retain all the formatting.

> I didn't want to do hair splitting. I just used the example to convince
> you that you don't require to type '\textit{}' all the times you need
> italics.

Which I never said.

> texmacs is not emacs! See www.texmacs.org.

Technically you're right.  From the FAQ, first question:

* is a free scientific text editor, which was both inspired by TeX and GNU 
Emacs.

Yea, scientific text is what I am writing here.  Inspired by Emacs.
You're out of touch.
-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | But who decides what they dream?
   PGP Key: 8B6E99C5   |   And dream I do...
---+-



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[Steve Lamb]

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 Word!  That is reasonable?!

> Yes. Reasonable, simple, efficient.

OOo -> Save As .doc
LaTex -> Export to HTML, find an HTML to .doc converter, hope all the
formatting goes through (which it won't).

That is not simple, that is not efficient and that is not reasonable.

> (Unfortunately the way from word to LaTeX is not nearly that efficient
> if not impossible.)

Good thing I'm not using Word then, a point that most people gloss over.

> 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.

Correct.  However I also said that in my research of potential publishers
only 3 formats were accepted.  Printed manuscript which is increasingly
frowned upon, plain text which loses formatting, or .DOC.  That means it is in
my best interest in the long run to ensure that whatever format I work in is
easily and reasonable converted to the most widely accepted format which
retains formatting.

> No. The reason for suggesting WYSIWYG editors was that you said you are
> not comfortable with other editors.

I never said that, either.  I said that for this purpose I wish to think
about it visually, not conceptually.  My vim-fu is quite strong, thanks.

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | But who decides what they dream?
   PGP Key: 8B6E99C5   |   And dream I do...
---+-



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[Steve Lamb]

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 you can't breathe in one.

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | But who decides what they dream?
   PGP Key: 8B6E99C5   |   And dream I do...
---+-



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[Johannes Wiedersich]

-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 personal experience LaTeX *is the tool* when it comes to
> 
> You personal experience is not *MY* personal experience.

True. But my personal experience includes quite a bit of work with word,
OOo *and* LaTeX.

[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 for LaTeX who's stringent
> proponents eschew WYSIWYG is to put oneself right back at the same level as
> any other tool.

LaTeX, especially without formulas or too complicated formatting, is
easily converted to many different acceptable formats: HTML, pdf, plain
text, etc. The route via HTML to OOo and .doc is straightforward for the
situation you describe.

[snip]

> Yeah, EMACS, not working for me.  And as for "one less than OOo's CNTL-I"
> that depends, do you cound a chord as one keystroke or two?  Most people don't
> count the chord for capitalization as two keystrokes.  Is FIVE 8 keystrokes, 5
> keystrokes or 4 keystrokes?  Chording is a part of typing, as any EMACS user
> is well aware.  :P

I didn't want to do hair splitting. I just used the example to convince
you that you don't require to type '\textit{}' all the times you need
italics.

texmacs is not emacs! See www.texmacs.org.

Johannes

PS: Your other remarks have already been answered in another post on
this thread.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFG+mzeC1NzPRl9qEURAvnDAJ4ttEjJcpnun/sTABHmGcF/aPJA7QCaAysk
WwHt+lq0r8iUQwlnUbA+d8E=
=CPqm
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[Johannes Wiedersich]

-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-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[Neil Watson]

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 11 days
http://watson-wilson.ca


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[Steve Lamb]

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 experience is not *MY* personal experience.

>>  o version might be nice in case I want to back out of large portions of the
>> document or refer to previous verbage I had removed and want to reconsider.
> 
> and
> 
>> Am I writing a book?  Yes.

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 for LaTeX who's stringent
proponents eschew WYSIWYG is to put oneself right back at the same level as
any other tool.

> Any solution with (Open)-office tools that tries to satisfy those two of
> your requirements will be impractical and cumbersome, as far as I know.

They're not the only requirements.  I thought the words "might be nice"
was a good clue that it wasn't a high priority.  Normally one states high
priority without qualifiers or with words like "is essential."

> It's not as difficult as you seem to think. (texmacs uses F5 for
> italics, so it's even one key less than OOo's ctrl-i).

Yeah, EMACS, not working for me.  And as for "one less than OOo's CNTL-I"
that depends, do you cound a chord as one keystroke or two?  Most people don't
count the chord for capitalization as two keystrokes.  Is FIVE 8 keystrokes, 5
keystrokes or 4 keystrokes?  Chording is a part of typing, as any EMACS user
is well aware.  :P

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | But who decides what they dream?
   PGP Key: 8B6E99C5   |   And dream I do...
---+-



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[Steve Lamb]

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 mouse clicks.  However, you seem to
> have made up your mind without actually spending some time writing a 
> document or two.

Very nice how you conveniently left out where I stated CNTL-I is fewer
keystrokes compared to {\it}.  In other words you're shifting it to a personal
attack of "look, he's one of those GUI people".  Whatever.  I don't need to
write a document or two to know that it would be inconvenient, to me, to shift
to 5 keys instead of 2 (or even 1) for a simple operation like italics and
that having to remember to escape certain normal characters would be a problem.

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?!  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!?

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | But who decides what they dream?
   PGP Key: 8B6E99C5   |   And dream I do...
---+-



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[Johannes Wiedersich]

-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 feel it is
> the best tool for me, personally.  At that point any reply stating that I am
> wrong is personal because I have stated it is *ME*, not the tool, that is at
> issue.

I hope I didn't state that you are wrong, that's not my intention.

- From my personal experience LaTeX *is the tool* when it comes to

>  o version might be nice in case I want to back out of large portions of the
> document or refer to previous verbage I had removed and want to reconsider.

and

> Am I writing a book?  Yes.

Any solution with (Open)-office tools that tries to satisfy those two of
your requirements will be impractical and cumbersome, as far as I know.
If you want *efficient* management of longer texts and versioning, I
guess you should learn LaTeX or one of LaTeX's wysiwygish interfaces.
It's not as difficult as you seem to think. (texmacs uses F5 for
italics, so it's even one key less than OOo's ctrl-i).

Johannes


-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFG+mQaC1NzPRl9qEURAlNNAJ9wKKEXHBw/UysmxPjqNWfxpKPHxQCff/oA
j+RFeb0Vquowf1gqi5Od5wk=
=85DO
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[Neil Watson]

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 seem
to have made up your mind without actually spending some time writing a
document or two.

--
Neil Watson | Debian Linux
System Administrator| Uptime 11 days
http://watson-wilson.ca


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[Steve Lamb]

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 stating that I am
wrong is personal because I have stated it is *ME*, not the tool, that is at
issue.

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | But who decides what they dream?
   PGP Key: 8B6E99C5   |   And dream I do...
---+-



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[Johannes Wiedersich]

-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 hour searching with Google, I came across only one potential
> solution.

I havn't yet tried with HeVeA output, but OOo is quite capable of
handling html code. It can also export to .doc

Johannes

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFG+lyKC1NzPRl9qEURAsE/AJ9ZIhfCK/WNWFYhMyIuIgxO+WJhdwCbBrsK
Wj6ihTDtBpPO7RjTOFPMmFQ=
=ieXX
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[Johannes Wiedersich]

-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.

... or it will explode in your face - your mileage will vary. At least
that is what happened when I got my word document back from a colleague
who had just made a couple of small changes. The version I sent was
written with Office 2000, the one I got back was apparently edited with
2003 for mac. M$ generously asked me, if I'd like to report the problem
back to them.

I am still waiting for their reply and the bug fix :-(

I had to try several computers with different combinations of their OS
and Office product to spot one that could open the document without
crashing. Even on this one some formatting is displayed incorrectly and
formulas cannot be edited (yes, their formula editor is installed and
works for other documents).

>> It's rare that someone sends me a complicated Word file and I'm able
>> to print it cleanly without adjustments.
> 
> Good thing that what I'm writing is not at all complex.  The two most
> complex things are italics and indent-first-line.

Too complex to be handled by word could mean more than a couple pages of
'simple' text. Remember the program is called 'word' not words, lines,
paragraphs, pages, chapters, book, etc.

>> A little free advice:  If you're planning on writing long documents,
>> such as books,
> 
> What kind of books?  You description goes on to describe what sounds to
> be a technical manual.  Someone else mentioned mathematics.  Another
> person talked about technical writing.
> 
> 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 special sections, massive
> indention or the like.  This is strictly line-after-line prose which
> could be done plain text except for the fact that I am making use of
> italics as a conscious style choice to reinforce when a character is
> /'thinking'/ something versus "saying" something.
> 
> So, as I had repeated several times, I'm sure LaTeX is wonderful for
> what it is designed for.  

To say it with the words of the author of tex: "TeX, a new typesetting
system intended for the creation of beautiful books [...]"


>  However it is not something I am interested in
> learning for the purposes I would put it to at this time.  The constant
> hammering with examples which are far beyond the requirements of the
> style I writing I am engaging in is getting a tad tiresome.  I want
> WYSIWYG because it helps me think about what is happening.  I want
> simple and easy-to-convert to a common format because I don't know if
> and by whom this project would be picked up.  

As someone suggested: try lyx or texmacs as wysiwyg editors for
TeX/LaTeX. (I have little first hand experience, though as I don't like
wysiwyg.)

>   I don't want a complex
> programming language because I am writing fiction, not programming an
> application!  

If you don't need mathematical formulas in TeX/LaTeX, you don't need to
learn anything about it. For a typical work of fiction, the text will be
99+% text with very little markup.

>  While they are both creative they are two different modes
> of thinking!  While I appreciate that other people find it wonderful for
> their tasks I ask that those people also appreciate that not everyone
> finds the tools they use as equally suited to their tasks, especially
> creative tasks.  Creative tasks are personal.  Processes and tools which
> work for one person do not work for someone else.  And that is OK!

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. Most people
using LaTeX (including myself) have experience in both worlds (Office
style and Latex style), yet it seems that all (at least almost all) of
those that took some time learn to practice LaTeX never like to go back
to using office programs.

Back to the main topic: I am using LaTeX with bzr (considering to move
to mercurial) and they work more or less perfectly together. I don't
version graphics files, but for the text files it's become essential for
me to 'colordiff' different versions. I don't think that it is practical
to accomplish the same with either OOo or M$ Office. The latter has some
kind of 'versioning' system, where different authors/revisions get
different colours, but it is nothing like as efficient as Latex together
with a modern CMS.

YMMV, good luck,

Johannes


-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFG+luHC1NzPRl9qEURAmQGAJ9ik9ysgn+H3A2/NeZOwqz87F9s2gCfVLHm
809U2GbQjfPCYfJ1waDzPgk=
=4FAQ
-END PGP

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[judd]

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
> 
> 

 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.  If he wants to have an index, or
bibliograpy, footnotes, etc. in the book, it´s definitely worth learning
to use latex or some variant.

 If revision history, etc, is necessary or really desirable, using 
lyx and subversion, as other posters suggested, might be a good way to
go; I haven´t used lyx myself for several years, so I´m dont´t know how
easy it would be for him to use.

-Chris 


|   Christopher Judd, Ph. D.  [EMAIL PROTECTED]   |



IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments may contain
confidential or sensitive information which is, or may be, legally
privileged or otherwise protected by law from further disclosure.  It
is intended only for the addressee.  If you received this in error or
from someone who was not authorized to send it to you, please do not
distribute, copy or use it or any attachments.  Please notify the
sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this from your
system. Thank you for your cooperation.

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[Anthony Campbell]

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. If anyone is interested, I tried
with Open Office but it didn't work well. I then switched to Lyx and
everything was fine. However, do NOT try to export your file as pdf.
Lulu is very demanding about fonts and I was not able to get them
inserted in the correct fashion. The solution is to export your file as
postscipt. Lulu does not advertise the fact but they do accept this
format and it works without problems.

Anthony


-- 
Anthony Campbell - [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Microsoft-free zone - Using Linux Gnu-Debian
http://www.acampbell.org.uk (blog, book reviews, 
on-line books and sceptical articles)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[debian]

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 by programming one of the xemacs
functions keys to run latex.  That way I have the best of both worlds
-- latex and wysiwyg.

But, nobody has yet mentioned the FOREMOST advantage of latex - once
the penny drops, it is super fun !

I have just finished a small non-technical book using latex and
enjoyed every minute of it.  Latex is a joy to work with.

Joe


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[Russell L. Harris]

* 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, out of curiosity, I installed latex2rtf and ran it on
a typical document of the variety which I routinely produce.  The
document has a header, a footer, page numbers, two columns, and
footnotes.  The resulting RTF document was crude to the point of being
laughable, and was unusable.

I then spent an hour or so with Google, searching for alternative
approaches.  The most promising seems to be first to convert from
LaTeX to HTML, and then to convert from HTML to M$ Word .doc format.

In previous experimentation, I determined that, for the type of
documents I create, HeVeA is by far the best solution for converting
from LaTeX to HTML.  The header detail cannot be reproduced in HTML,
and the output is in a single column, but these losses are
insignificant for my application.  HeVeA is marvelous in its handling
of footnotes and the table of contents.  And HeVeA has been carefully
designed for compatibility with LaTeX, so there is no need to maintain
parallel versions (LaTeX and HTML) of my source documents.

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 hour searching with Google, I came across only one potential
solution.

RLH


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[Peter Robinson]

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 the produce and peek
method of screwing it up.

  

Talk to your publisher.



This presumes I have a publisher.  I never said I did.  I pointed out
that it appears that submissions are desired in two formats. 
Implication being that when I am done with my work I'll be submitting it

to different places in the hopes of getting it picked up.  Since I am
unaware of what company, if any, I will end up with I cannot make any
presumptions about any format they will accept outside of the lowest
common denominator.  Word, plain text or printed manuscript.
  


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


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[Steve Lamb]

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 thinking}
> and "saying" to ``saying''; type "pdftex file.txt" and "\end".
> file.pdf looks like http://sns.phys.utk.edu/~mahurin/du/09-25.pdf,
> which I think is what you're after.

Uh, no.  It's more than that.  You're forgetting loading in the templates
and the entire structure.  You're also ignoring that CNTL-I is a tad shorter
than {\it}, esp. since \ is way out of the way of my normal typing habits.
Then there's the problem of most of the common symbols one just might want to
use in a work of fiction are reserved in LaTeX so they need to be escaped with
\.  Well, except \ itself which requires a special macro.  Oh, and it
completely ignores the two facts that I want to work on this document
visually, not conceptually, AND that I *NEED* to be able to revert it to the
proprietary format used by Word which, in a quick Google check, seems to
require at minimum of a shareware product!

After all this talk I decided to cure my ignorance of LaTeX and actually
go to the main site and read the first two chapters.  The two chapters, I
might add, that the document itself states is all that is needed to write a
basic paper.  I am, quite frankly, appalled that anyone would consider LaTeX
in any way an appropriate suggestion to someone who has stated, repeatedly,
the above requirements.

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!  I *HAVE* to think about the formatting lest I trip up on one of
the language's reserved clauses!  I hate to break it you but I do not want to
be thinking about matching braces and proper escapes when I am trying to
figure out the right words to describe one of my antagonists reactions to a
bit of bad news delivered by a side-flipping protagonist.  What I care about
at that point is how to I describe his reaction without TELLING my audience
what that reaction is.

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | But who decides what they dream?
   PGP Key: 8B6E99C5   |   And dream I do...
---+-



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[Ron Johnson]

-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 special sections, massive
> indention or the like.  This is strictly line-after-line prose which
> could be done plain text except for the fact that I am making use of
> italics as a conscious style choice to reinforce when a character is
> /'thinking'/ something versus "saying" something.
> 
> So, as I had repeated several times, I'm sure LaTeX is wonderful for
> what it is designed for.  However it is not something I am interested in
> learning for the purposes I would put it to at this time.  The constant
> hammering with examples which are far beyond the requirements of the
> style I writing I am engaging in is getting a tad tiresome.  I want
> WYSIWYG because it helps me think about what is happening.  I want
> simple and easy-to-convert to a common format because I don't know if
> and by whom this project would be picked up.  I don't want a complex

Lyx, texlive-latex-recommended (for the memoir and rcs plugins) and
tex4ht (for exporting to Word or odt format) are what you want, then.

Create a simple template (/memoir/, from texlive-latex-recommended)
should point you in the right direction), and then start typing im
the GUI window.

Since it's plain multi-line text, mercurial won't have any problem
diffing the file and saving the changes.

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFG+cqOS9HxQb37XmcRAqvPAJ9gOhoRlzlmfUSUao8UEgBSaKsJJgCghdsq
mPYcA75mYQxnlzP+AyrHfz8=
=Y8k9
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[Rob Mahurin]

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 fiction.  I have no in-line graphics, complex font changes
> for examples, silly little icons to denote special sections, massive
> indention or the like.  This is strictly line-after-line prose which
> could be done plain text except for the fact that I am making use of
> italics as a conscious style choice to reinforce when a character is
> /'thinking'/ something versus "saying" something.

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 thinking}
and "saying" to ``saying''; type "pdftex file.txt" and "\end".
file.pdf looks like http://sns.phys.utk.edu/~mahurin/du/09-25.pdf,
which I think is what you're after.

Good luck with your writing.

Rob

-- 
Rob Mahurin
Dept. of Physics & Astronomy
University of Tennessee phone:  865 207 2594
Knoxville, TN  37996email:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[Ron Johnson]

-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 had to
> restore from backup.

A single 650 page .doc file???  I'm more than impressed.

> In a proper typesetting program, changing the format of a heading means
> changing the template -- once -- and then regenerating the document.  It
> does the drudgery of maintaining consistency for you.

OOo has similar DTP-like template functionality.


- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFG+cOXS9HxQb37XmcRAnMNAKDJeO9WjPoj6gHEb0ZRDVHPuvObBwCfUgbH
pq1wzMhLs+2vBnqEDtIzOcY=
=dKgU
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[Steve Lamb]

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
> to print it cleanly without adjustments.

Good thing that what I'm writing is not at all complex.  The two most
complex things are italics and indent-first-line.

> A little free advice:  If you're planning on writing long documents,
> such as books,

What kind of books?  You description goes on to describe what sounds to
be a technical manual.  Someone else mentioned mathematics.  Another
person talked about technical writing.

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 special sections, massive
indention or the like.  This is strictly line-after-line prose which
could be done plain text except for the fact that I am making use of
italics as a conscious style choice to reinforce when a character is
/'thinking'/ something versus "saying" something.

So, as I had repeated several times, I'm sure LaTeX is wonderful for
what it is designed for.  However it is not something I am interested in
learning for the purposes I would put it to at this time.  The constant
hammering with examples which are far beyond the requirements of the
style I writing I am engaging in is getting a tad tiresome.  I want
WYSIWYG because it helps me think about what is happening.  I want
simple and easy-to-convert to a common format because I don't know if
and by whom this project would be picked up.  I don't want a complex
programming language because I am writing fiction, not programming an
application!  While they are both creative they are two different modes
of thinking!  While I appreciate that other people find it wonderful for
their tasks I ask that those people also appreciate that not everyone
finds the tools they use as equally suited to their tasks, especially
creative tasks.  Creative tasks are personal.  Processes and tools which
work for one person do not work for someone else.  And that is OK!

-- 
Steve Lamb


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[David Brodbeck]

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 requirements.   
Working in
ODT and then either printing it and mailing out the manuscript or  
simply
saving it in Word (and ensure it still looks clean) prior to  
sending it

through email is the best bet.


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.


Oh, and the same printers installed.  Forgot to add that one.  Word  
adjusts its margins based on the printer that's currently selected,  
which affects pagination.





--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[David Brodbeck]

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 mailing out the manuscript or  
simply
saving it in Word (and ensure it still looks clean) prior to  
sending it

through email is the best bet.


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's rare that someone sends me a complicated Word file and I'm able  
to print it cleanly without adjustments.  Usually things like spacing  
and pagination get screwed up due to differences in fonts, different  
interpretations of tab stops, etc.


The only way to be sure the other person sees what you see is by  
using a page description language, like PDF.




A little free advice:  If you're planning on writing long documents,  
such as books, I'm going to humbly suggest that the initial pain of  
learning a typesetting program (TeX or some equivalent) will save you  
from worse pain later.


A company I used to work for once did a large operations manual  
entirely in MS Word 2000.  It was a nightmare.  Every time the client  
wanted us to change the format of, say, the section headings, we had  
to go fix every section heading by hand and ensure they all came out  
the same.  Invariably we'd miss some, which would be flagged on the  
next review.  It took hours, sometimes even days, to make simple  
global formatting 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 had to restore from backup.


In a proper typesetting program, changing the format of a heading  
means changing the template -- once -- and then regenerating the  
document.  It does the drudgery of maintaining consistency for you.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[Steve Lamb]

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
method of screwing it up.

> Talk to your publisher.

This presumes I have a publisher.  I never said I did.  I pointed out
that it appears that submissions are desired in two formats. 
Implication being that when I am done with my work I'll be submitting it
to different places in the hopes of getting it picked up.  Since I am
unaware of what company, if any, I will end up with I cannot make any
presumptions about any format they will accept outside of the lowest
common denominator.  Word, plain text or printed manuscript.

> The issue here is that it seems that you want to do some formatting and
> then the publisher will want to tweak your formatting.

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 mailing out the manuscript or simply
saving it in Word (and ensure it still looks clean) prior to sending it
through email is the best bet.

> Your final output format doesn't have to have anything to do with your
> input format; the format that goes into your version controll system.

Exactly.  I have not heard of LaTeX outputting to Word.  I have heard of
an ODT to Word converter OOo.  ;)

-- 
Steve Lamb


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[David Brodbeck]

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? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[Douglas A. Tutty]

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 with
> > Word and OpenOffice.
> 
> 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 impression that there is no WYSIWYG, no
> way to get a basic view of how it might look printed outside of actually doing
> whatever magic it is to send it off to a printer.  Which I don't have.

I remember when I first switched from OS/2 to Linux.  I was used to
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.  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.

When I got my new computer, it wouldn't run Sarge so I had to use Etch
while it was still testing and Lout wasn't in testing at the time.  So I
had to learn LaTex.  Its not much different once you take a day or two
to read the docs and try it.  Again, the standard output (dvi) has a
viewer, or you can put it into ps, and have a viewer follow that.

> 
> 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.  I've yet to see one accept LaTeX.  So without a printer I am stuck with
> transforming what I want into an acceptable format and plain text won't so.  I
> am using some formatting.  Nothing fancy, noting that will cause formatting
> inconsistencies.  But just enough that plain text is unacceptable.


Talk to your publisher.  They may be able to take dvi or ps.  If they're
going to take your work and plug it into their desktop publishing
software, they may just want plain text plus .eps graphics.  

The issue here is that it seems that you want to do some formatting and
then the publisher will want to tweak your formatting.  You need to
determine what your final output and their first input format should be
to effect this.

Your final output format doesn't have to have anything to do with your
input format; the format that goes into your version controll system.  

Doug.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[Russell L. Harris]

* 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 of actually doing whatever magic it is
>> to send it off to a printer.  Which I don't have.

> Hm? Usually, you have one editor (Notepad-like or something more
> advanced) for your Latex code and some viewer application where you can
> see your compiled document (PDF, DVI).  However, the more you get used
> to it, the less you need to know how exactly some specific markup looks
> like.  You can always adjust the details at a later time without
> touching the actual contents of your document.
> 
> I know that there is a special Latex-mode for Emacs which displays some
> kind of inline-preview directly in your editor. I like vim better,
> though, so I cannot tell much about it.

Rather than the Emacs preview, I use "xdvi" to view the typeset
document:

I use the Gnome desktop.  I find it convenient to open several
terminal windows (Gnome terminal or multi-Gnome-terminal).  One window
I use for the command line, and in each of the others I run an
instance of "xdvi" for the file which I am editing.

Inasmuch as xdvi allows me to "zoom" to any magnification I wish, I
use each instance of xdvi to provide a different view:

=> a magnified view of the region of the page or column on which I
am working (I typically typeset documents in two-column format)

=> a magnified view of the footnotes

=> a reduced view of the entire page (you can flip through the
pages with the PAGEUP and PAGEDOWN keys; this makes it very easy
to spot mark-up errors in section titles)

=> a normal view of the table of contents

Using alt-TAB (or the rodent), I can switch between the XEmacs window,
the xdvi windows, and the command-line window.

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).

RLH


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[Jochen Schulz]

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 impression that there is no WYSIWYG, no
> way to get a basic view of how it might look printed outside of actually doing
> whatever magic it is to send it off to a printer.  Which I don't have.

Hm? Usually, you have one editor (Notepad-like or something more
advanced) for your Latex code and some viewer application where you can
see your compiled document (PDF, DVI).  However, the more you get used
to it, the less you need to know how exactly some specific markup looks
like.  You can always adjust the details at a later time without
touching the actual contents of your document.

I know that there is a special Latex-mode for Emacs which displays some
kind of inline-preview directly in your editor. I like vim better,
though, so I cannot tell much about it.

> 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.  I've yet to see one accept LaTeX.  So without a printer I am stuck with
> transforming what I want into an acceptable format and plain text won't so.  I
> am using some formatting.  Nothing fancy, noting that will cause formatting
> inconsistencies.  But just enough that plain text is unacceptable.

Sounds like a job for reStructured Text to me, but that's unacceptable
as well, probably. ;-)

J.
-- 
It is not in my power to change anything.
[Agree]   [Disagree]
 


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[Steve Lamb]

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 that
> they were written in TeX.

Those are scientific texts which is a different standard completely.  I'm
not writing a scientific text.  Just good ol' fiction here where the writer
writes and the typesetter typesets.  :)

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | But who decides what they dream?
   PGP Key: 8B6E99C5   |   And dream I do...
---+-



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[Steve Lamb]

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...
---+-



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[Neil Watson]

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 different formats, all from the same source file,  including HTML,
PDF, RTF and with the help of elinks or lynx plain text.

--
Neil Watson | Debian Linux
System Administrator| Uptime 10 days
http://watson-wilson.ca


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[Adam Mercer]

> 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 requirements.  Most also do not accept Word documents due to
formatting problems across different versions.

Cheers

Adam


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[Ron Johnson]

-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 inconsistencies that are so common with
>> Word and OpenOffice.
> 
> 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 impression that there is no WYSIWYG, no
> way to get a basic view of how it might look printed outside of actually doing
> whatever magic it is to send it off to a printer.  Which I don't have.
> 
> 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.  I've yet to see one accept LaTeX.

PDF?

> So without a printer I am stuck with
> transforming what I want into an acceptable format and plain text won't so.  I
> am using some formatting.  Nothing fancy, noting that will cause formatting
> inconsistencies.  But just enough that plain text is unacceptable.

lyx is supposed to be a good GUI front-end to latex, and I'm sure
that there's a way to convert latex to PDF.

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFG+SAxS9HxQb37XmcRAoMpAKCLYHk2olkHMxY2sRjplw4pwFiPQQCfT0en
HaZvM+ADY95JkwBjUk/zCOg=
=+Hd5
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: OT: Choice of OOo and LaTeX (Was: Tool for document management)

[Kumar Appaiah]

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 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 of actually doing
> whatever magic it is to send it off to a printer.  Which I don't have.

Kile and Lyx may be for you.

> 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.  I've yet to see one accept LaTeX.  So without a printer I am stuck with
> transforming what I want into an acceptable format and plain text won't so.  I
> am using some formatting.  Nothing fancy, noting that will cause formatting
> inconsistencies.  But just enough that plain text is unacceptable.

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 that
they were written in TeX.

Kumar
-- 
Kumar Appaiah,
458, Jamuna Hostel,
Indian Institute of Technology Madras,
Chennai - 600 036


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature