On Oct 8, 2007, at 10:35 AM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote: > > On Oct 8, 2007, at 04:10, Jason Davies wrote: > >>> As an alternative for collaborative work that has to use some >>> kind of >>> "widely accepted commercial software", I use LaTeX / BibTeX > >>> latex2rtf. So I can at least write my initial text and citations >>> in a >>> manner that does not completely drive me crazy… >> >> yes, I've been doing this increasingly too. Most annoying is >> when it's part of a collection that you can bet the publisher >> will convert back to LaTeX or XML from the Word version you >> provided the editor! > > Yeah, this is precisely what I do as well. Using latex2rtf at least > avoids most of the insanity of trying to enter and reference figures/ > tables/equations/citations in a word processor. Since it (fully?) > supports natbib, there's pretty good bibliography support as well.
I will put in another vote for this strategy, which I use frequently. I haven't had any problems with using bib styles of my own creation, either. The only problem is that if someone makes changes in the rtf file, say, using word, there's no simple way to integrate the changes into the LaTeX source. -Adam G ================================= Adam M. Goldstein PhD Assistant Professor of Philosophy Iona College -- email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.iona.edu/faculty/agoldstein/ tel: (914) 637-2717 post: Iona College Department of Philosophy 715 North Avenue New Rochelle, NY 10801 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ Bibdesk-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users
