> This was discussed here earlier. For OOo/LibO user guides (docs aimed at > end users, not developers), ODT as a source doc works better (at least > in the short term) for these reasons: > > 1) LibO docs team is using the OOo docs as a starting point, and the OOo > docs are in ODT. (The user docs on the OOo wiki are not up to date.)
> 2) Going from ODT to wiki gives a good layout, but going from wiki to > ODT (or PDF) does not; the layout sucks. User guides have too many > illustrations, tables, and other features; Mmch fixing up is necessary > after export from wiki to ODT if you want a professional looking result. > 3) Going from ODT to PDF is easy, and layout is preserved. As stated in > (2), going from wiki to PDF gives poor layout that needs much work. > > 4) Using a wiki does NOT eliminate the proofreading effort. In my > experience, using a wiki as the source document results in MORE need for > proofreading. Althugh reviewing/editing may be done on the wiki, > tracking the changes is not as easy as in ODT; asking questions and > getting answers is not as easy; edited wiki pages often/usually need > further editing for grammar, comprehension, etc; and much more checking > of page layout etc is needed after export to ODT. > > 5) At OOo most of the people interested in working on user guides say > they prefer to work in the ODT files. It may turn out to be different at > LibO. > > --Jean ************************* Hi Jean, @points 1-3: prediapress is running a successful "Print-on-Demand" business out of printing books from wikis. (see their massive catalog here: http://pediapress.com/books/) Each book is nothing but an exported pdf from wiki. (In fact, all those exported pdfs are available for download free of cost at PediaPress site). So professional formatting in exported pdfs may not be an issue. BTW the default setting of the extension is to export pdfs meant for black-n-white PRINTING. (all text color is stripped, and links are converted to footnotes so that reader can read them). However, PediaPress shared with us some 12 tweaks that produce pdf files meant for reading on screen. (The exported pdf has full color text/images, and we can click on its links to jump to another "marked destination"/URL.) Unfortunately in case of ReNamer, we have a shared server, so those tweaks could not be used. (The changes will affect all other users too.) But I do have a list of those config changes, which I can share if people are interested. (Basically some parameters are changed in a few Python files at server). No harm in trying! :) @point-4: Wiki has built-in DIFF tools to see any version vs any older version. You can roll back with a single click. Even changes in images are tracked. The mother of all wikis, Wikipedia, has other more sophisticated tools for managing wikis. These are available for free download. In fact, I have found that wiki's "Discussion" page is the idea place to ask question, or even to place an alternative mock up of the page. Then other reviewers can compare these alternatives and post their opinion on these versions. Finally we may use one of the versions or a mix of them. I have actually DONE this in the example provided. :) BTW these discussion pages are not suitable for intensive proofreading (where multiple people are commenting simultaneously). Reason: They have to keep a track of what the OTHER critiques are saying. This is really strenuous, because you have to open the relevant page of the odt and visualize each comment. Rather than 10 reviewers pouring through their 10 odt files to track each-others' comments, using a wiki is far simpler. Regards, Narayan -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected] List archive: http://www.libreoffice.org/lists/documentation/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
