On Wed, 2004-08-18 at 22:10, Rik Tindall wrote: > Jaco Swart wrote: > > > There are two issues involved in this thread. The first is writing, > > and the tools that can be used for it. The second issue is publishing, > > and the tools that can be used. > > > > Writing: Any word processor that you are comfortable with will do, > > really. If Abi does the job for Wesley, great stuff and way to go. > > > > Publishing: This gets more involved. This is where the completed text > > gets formated and merged with images and tables - and this goes for > > books and brochures alike. Quite frankly, the tool does not guarantee > > the outcome. Its not how well you know your tools that matters, its > > what the layout designer knows about layout, style, typefaces, > > formatting, etc etc etc that makes or break the book. If the tool can > > handle the requirements, great stuff and way to go. While latex is the > > way to go for a sizeable group, and docbook for a sizeable second > > group, OpenOffice is the way to go for a third sizeable group (I fall > > in this group). And a fourth group will find that Scribus fulfils > > their requirements. In short: Freedom of choice, but is should be > > based on requirements. > > Is there not then a fifth segment, using HTML? Whether writing inhouse > and/or CD-distributed technical manuals, or for the web, it works with > reasonable layout control & consistency. It can be made to print ok too. > > HTML's main advantage is that it's fitted to utilise the (free) > publishing technology whose revolutionary potential has been unmatched > by anything since the sixteenth century printing press - the Internet > itself. Content is thereby supplemented by context, and availability. > > Now HTML's not so good for asserting copyright, but isn't that why we > are in discussion here?
not sure where you got a fifth segment from? Jaco was writing about two issues, writing and publishing. html is a form of publishing. I think the gist of it is this: 1. consider your market. 2. look for tools that support those markets. [1] 3. find a writing tool that supports the tool that will generate your range of outputs. [2] [1] unixy people (particularly doco writers) seem to like to produce a large variety of formats: plain text, pdf, ps, html,blah blah from the same source, so they will choose a tool that will produce those outputs from the same source. Mike suggested some tools that will produce a variety of outputs. pure print publishing people may not be interested in plain text or html, probably only into ps or pdf. people who want web output may not be interested in pdf. some people may only be interested in communicating with people who are using ms word.} [2] most of the open formats like html and latex can probably be written in anything from notepad.exe through to openoffice and specialised tools. thats because they use plain text equivalents to typographical elements. look at Mikes /ldots. you can use higher level tools to dreate /ldots automagiacally :-) Some formats like ms office/word will require a very limited range of editors, because the file format cannot be replicated in plain text, it is proprietary binary. > > > > Long lives Penguin Publishing. > > All good. > > > So write on, Wesley! Happy abi-ing to you, I say :-) > > > > And happy latexing and happy docbooking and so on to the rest, > > > > Jaco > > > > ps: A note on OpenOffice: It has gone a long way to become a viable > > alternative to Adobe Framemaker. In fact, its implementation of frames > > is in general more powerfull, but easier to use, than that of the > > Frame King itself. OOo is not quite there yet: its image importing is > > buggy, and there are sadly not adequate resources to address all the > > known issues at this stage. :-( > > Rik >
