best WP app for producing .doc documents ?
in [UK Mac]
|
From: chris on 5 Jul 2010 06:56 On 05/07/10 11:02, Woody wrote: > chris<ithinkiam(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 04/07/10 17:31, Woody wrote: >>> Howard<Howard.not(a)home.com> wrote: >>>> If Word is now producing xml format as standard ... what WP would >>>> you >>>> recommend as an alternative ? >>> >>> Something that outputs a form of XML which could be taken and >>> reconstructed independantly following a standard to produce the same >>> (or >>> very similar) appearance somewhere where the algorithms to do it >>> werern't hidden. >>> >>> Basically, some format that all WPs could produce and read, leaving >>> your >>> choice of a WP down to what works well for you rather than what you >>> have >>> to use to read the document. >> >> What about ODF? I see that Office 2010 and 2007 SP2 will read (and >> write?) ODF. Will the new Mac Office do the same? If it does and MS >> doesn't completely re-interpret the format as it is wont to do (big if >> I know), then that could solve all the problems. Would it not? > > It would certainly have the potential to, if you can persuade people to > use it. For the OP's situation, all you'd need to do is say 'It's a Word file', so no problem there. Getting people to save as ODF, would be a challenge, I agree. It's the same as the current situation of *not* saving as docx... > In fact ODF is the reason for words XML format I'm not sure what you mean. Is it that certain groups were threatening to use only ODF documents for archiving and open access reasons?
From: Woody on 5 Jul 2010 07:14 chris <ithinkiam(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 05/07/10 11:02, Woody wrote: >> In fact ODF is the reason for words XML format > > I'm not sure what you mean. Is it that certain groups were threatening > to use only ODF documents for archiving and open access reasons? ODF was going to be ratified as a standard for document transfer. That would have left the problem that there was an open standard for document transfer, or the closed Microsoft format, so microsoft decided they needed an 'open xml standard' too -- Woody
From: Hugh Browton on 5 Jul 2010 08:28 On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 21:04:12 +0100, Rowland McDonnell wrote (in article <1jl4ic6.fe7gbqb8dnnlN%real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid>): > > I'd say that MS Word has to be classified as belonging to the set > described as word processors - because there are only three categories > to consider: > > 1) Text editor > > 2) WP > > 3) Page layout/DTP package. > ?4) Structured editors - that know about other types of text manipulation, eg HTML? -- regards hugh hugh at clarity point uk point co (by the sea) (using Hogwasher) "The question of whether Machines Can Think... is about as relevant as the question of whether Submarines Can Swim." Edsger Dijkstra (1930-2002)
From: Rowland McDonnell on 5 Jul 2010 10:08 Hugh Browton <useneth@**.not.uk> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell wrote: > > > I'd say that MS Word has to be classified as belonging to the set > > described as word processors - because there are only three categories > > to consider: > > > > 1) Text editor > > > > 2) WP > > > > 3) Page layout/DTP package. > > > > ?4) Structured editors - that know about other types of text manipulation, eg > HTML? The above classification scheme puts them firmly in the camp of `text editors'. Unless I've misundestood what you're talking about. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Woody on 5 Jul 2010 10:39
Hugh Browton <useneth@**.not.uk> wrote: > On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 21:04:12 +0100, Rowland McDonnell wrote > (in article > <1jl4ic6.fe7gbqb8dnnlN%real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid>): > > >> >> I'd say that MS Word has to be classified as belonging to the set >> described as word processors - because there are only three > > categories >> to consider: >> >> 1) Text editor >> >> 2) WP >> >> 3) Page layout/DTP package. >> > > ?4) Structured editors - that know about other types of text > manipulation, eg > HTML? Would agree with the structured editors, although not HTML, as that is not a great example. Probably more sgml, editors like arbortext and the like. -- Woody |