On Wed, 29 Nov 2006, Micha Feigin wrote: > On Wednesday 29 November 2006 13:01, Juergen Fenn wrote: > > Sven Schreiber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> I don't think this is a good idea. If you are supposed to provide MS > > >> Word format you should use MS Word or at least OOo for writing your > > >> paper. The point is that the TeX community has spent too little effort > > >> on converters. > > > > > > Format better converters are needed, I don't think your advice is wise, > > > especially for people who are familiar and productive with Lyx. Btw, > > > what advice did you give before OOo existed? Everybody should buy (or > > > crack) msword? > > > > I gave the same advice earlier. It doesn't matter whether you use a > > If you always have to provide a doc file and it's not a budget issue to buy > windows and office than yes, you should use word. On the other hand, as the > OP wrote, at the time of writing he doesn't know which paper he is going to
This discussion has wandered into la-la land. The technical problem has solutions. Not great ones, but they work. The core question one about known standards. A program is not a standard, especially one with a shifting and undocumented file format. When I submitted a Ms to Social Forces, I included a three line "mild protest" about elevating a program to a standard and characterized the gestation of my "word" document in a *nix environment. The acknowledgment suggested (but did not state) that in the future, SF might accept LaTeX documents. (Ironically, the web only submission process converts everything to PDF anyway -- or at least said that is what it was doing -- for a long time.) My suggestion, politely lobby editors to adopt actual (and well documented) standards, rather than popular software. They are smart folk who may be emotionally involved with their word processors, but can grasp the elementary (elemental?) beauty of common standards. That is what the word only policy attempts, after all. Mark Hansel
