best WP app for producing .doc documents ?
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Rowland McDonnell on 5 Jul 2010 22:42 Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell wrote: > > Woody<usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > >> A text edit only knows about characters, so the only structure it knows > >> is end of line, as that is a character. > > > > I'd say no-one who'd ever met emacs could think that was the case. > > I used emacs quite a lot before I regained my sanity back at the start > of the 90s. > I view it as a text editor. It can run macros and it can perform actions > on the text, but it is still a text editor. And yet it understands structure - if you load the appropriate mode. My point is that it's a text editor /that understands structure/. > > Structured text editors are text editors by my reckoning - just > > sophisticated ones. > > What sort of thing do you mean by structured text editors? Do you mean > my example of arbortext and the like (basically sgml / xml editors) or > emacs (programable text editor). <shrug> I've never used arbortext - as you well know. What I'd call it is `something else entirely' from the publisher's description: "Arbortext, PTC's dynamic information delivery software, offers an end-to-end solution that streamlines how your organization authors, manages and delivers product information on demand. " [snip] > But I was still referring to the other type of editor, which is the > structured editor which is effectively more like a database entry than a > text editor (or WP or DTP). <shrug> Point me at an example of the sort of thing you mean that I can try myself, and I'll pass judgement. Currently, I'm of the opinion that what you call a structured text editor is in a class of software that I'd categorize separately to text editors. For example, any old spreadsheet or database entry software has text editing abilities - but you'd not call 'em text editors, would you? 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: Rowland McDonnell on 6 Jul 2010 02:02 Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: [snip] > 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. Can only ever be of limited use, because you'll never get a situation where all WPs support exactly the same feature set. So you'll always have documents that don't translate perfectly into the interchange format and then on to `whatever'. Still, it'd be dead handy regardless of that. 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 6 Jul 2010 03:00 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > Rowland McDonnell wrote: > > > Woody<usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > >> A text edit only knows about characters, so the only structure it knows > > >> is end of line, as that is a character. > > > > > > I'd say no-one who'd ever met emacs could think that was the case. > > > > I used emacs quite a lot before I regained my sanity back at the start > > of the 90s. > > I view it as a text editor. It can run macros and it can perform actions > > on the text, but it is still a text editor. > > And yet it understands structure - if you load the appropriate mode. Not really, it can run modules to read the text and do something with it. I wouldn't count that as an understanding of structure, more running macros on the text. BBEDit can also do that, yet it still doesn't understand structure itself. > My point is that it's a text editor /that understands structure/. Yes, I get that. > > > Structured text editors are text editors by my reckoning - just > > > sophisticated ones. > > > > What sort of thing do you mean by structured text editors? Do you mean > > my example of arbortext and the like (basically sgml / xml editors) or > > emacs (programable text editor). > > <shrug> I've never used arbortext - as you well know. > > What I'd call it is `something else entirely' from the publisher's > description: > > "Arbortext, PTC's dynamic information delivery software, offers an > end-to-end solution that streamlines how your organization authors, > manages and delivers product information on demand. " Its a tool which produces sgml or xml. It lets you fill in fields in an sgml structure. > > But I was still referring to the other type of editor, which is the > > structured editor which is effectively more like a database entry than a > > text editor (or WP or DTP). > > <shrug> Point me at an example of the sort of thing you mean that I can > try myself, and I'll pass judgement. I believe oXygen <http://www.oxygenxml.com/> has an author mode, and I believe it also has a free version, or is at least free for 30 days. It also is fairly good in not splatting files all over your system and being entirely self contained. > Currently, I'm of the opinion that what you call a structured text > editor is in a class of software that I'd categorize separately to text > editors. > > For example, any old spreadsheet or database entry software has text > editing abilities - but you'd not call 'em text editors, would you? No, as their output is something other than text. -- Woody www.alienrat.com
From: Rowland McDonnell on 6 Jul 2010 13:49 Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > > > 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. > > > > Can only ever be of limited use, because you'll never get a situation > > where all WPs support exactly the same feature set. So you'll always > > have documents that don't translate perfectly into the interchange > > format and then on to `whatever'. > > That is true. It could always do what a PDF does in that position. Not necessarily - with a PDF, you've got no translation required, so you've got a pretty good guarantee of perfect rendition by the receiver. As soon as you've got a translator involved, you've got errors in translation. > A PDF > is made up of a group of blocks of a specific type. If a PDF reading > program encounters a block that it doesn't understand, it ignores it and > carries on, but if it has to write that file it copies that block > verbatim into the output in the same place. I'm not sure what you mean by that. > > Still, it'd be dead handy regardless of that. > > It would be brilliant. I guess that is why it won't happen! The world will not be run by the USA forever, you know. One day we'll be free of that tyranny and good things such as decent interchange file formats will be universal. 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: Rowland McDonnell on 6 Jul 2010 14:02
Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > Rowland McDonnell wrote: > > > > Woody<usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > >> A text edit only knows about characters, so the only structure it knows > > > >> is end of line, as that is a character. > > > > > > > > I'd say no-one who'd ever met emacs could think that was the case. > > > > > > I used emacs quite a lot before I regained my sanity back at the start > > > of the 90s. > > > I view it as a text editor. It can run macros and it can perform actions > > > on the text, but it is still a text editor. > > > > And yet it understands structure - if you load the appropriate mode. > > Not really, it can run modules to read the text and do something with > it. I wouldn't count that as an understanding of structure, more running > macros on the text. What is `understanding structure' from the point of view of software if not `executing code to give the illusion of understanding'? btw, emacs has Lisp under the bonnet - you're talking as if `macros' aren't proper code and as if macros is all that's available. You're wrong on both counts. > BBEDit can also do that, BBEdit can't do what emacs can do - it's neither as flexible or as powerful. > yet it still doesn't > understand structure itself. BBEdit doesn't have the power of emacs. And no software understands anything really, does it? All you ever get is the illusion of understanding - and you get that with various modes in emacs. So I have to say that you're wrong. Since BBEdit is a very expensive commercial text editor, I've never used it. > > My point is that it's a text editor /that understands structure/. > > Yes, I get that. > > > > > Structured text editors are text editors by my reckoning - just > > > > sophisticated ones. > > > > > > What sort of thing do you mean by structured text editors? Do you mean > > > my example of arbortext and the like (basically sgml / xml editors) or > > > emacs (programable text editor). > > > > <shrug> I've never used arbortext - as you well know. > > > > What I'd call it is `something else entirely' from the publisher's > > description: > > > > "Arbortext, PTC's dynamic information delivery software, offers an > > end-to-end solution that streamlines how your organization authors, > > manages and delivers product information on demand. " > > Its a tool which produces sgml or xml. It lets you fill in fields in an > sgml structure. So it's definitely not in the set which includes text editors, WPs, and DTP packages. It's a different class of software entirely - not to be considered in the same breath as the rest of 'em. > > > But I was still referring to the other type of editor, which is the > > > structured editor which is effectively more like a database entry than a > > > text editor (or WP or DTP). > > > > <shrug> Point me at an example of the sort of thing you mean that I can > > try myself, and I'll pass judgement. > > I believe oXygen <http://www.oxygenxml.com/> has an author mode, and I > believe it also has a free version, or is at least free for 30 days. It > also is fairly good in not splatting files all over your system and > being entirely self contained. Hmm - looked at the Web page, no point me downloading it, there's no way I could make any sense out of it if I did. It's not what I'd call a text editor at all. I don't know what it is, I really don't - looks a real mess. > > Currently, I'm of the opinion that what you call a structured text > > editor is in a class of software that I'd categorize separately to text > > editors. > > > > For example, any old spreadsheet or database entry software has text > > editing abilities - but you'd not call 'em text editors, would you? > > No, as their output is something other than text. Since their output is in fact plain text (in some cases, if that's what you want) - erm, you're wrong. The output format is not relevant to whether or not they're text editors. I can use a text editor to prepare graphical output - and I have done. Does that make my text editor a graphics package? Of course not! Nor does it make LaTeX a graphics package, even though that's what did the post-processing of the text editor's saved file to create the graphical output I wanted. 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 |