On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 08:15:10 +0000 (UTC) Guenter Milde <mi...@users.berlios.de> wrote:
> On 2009-04-06, Typhoon wrote: > > On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 06:38:35 +0000 (UTC) > > Guenter Milde <mi...@users.berlios.de> wrote: > > >> On 2009-04-05, Rich Shepard wrote: > > >> > I'm surprised that no one seems to use the most reasonable > >> > solution for collaborative text: have everyone use plain text > ... > > >> This does not work for math, references, citations and hence is not > >> advisable for scientific papers. > > > The math point may be valid, but there is nothing to prevent the > > other items from being done in a plain text format with some > > minimal markup language. ReST (restructured text) has quite a rich > > set of markups that are easy to include. ReST certainly encourages > > a section structure. Even emacs outline mode will provide the > > section structure - used in conjunction with Muse mode, you get a > > lot of the other stuff as well. > > I agree that reStructuredText is a good way for semantic markup and a > candidate for a "least common denominator" for document format > conversion. > However, it is not plain text (which the OP suggested) so that > you still need > > a) to convince all your co-authors to use this format, or > b) good converters from other formats to rst. That's certainly true. What I have found, though, is that Word users can learn the LCD formats without pain because they don't LOOK like markups. So, with little effort, you can get collaboration that at least includes sectioning and, depending on the resistance of the collaborators, much more. It's not LaTeX, and I wouldn't use it in any other circumstances. Collaboration among grownups is not much of a problem. Alan > > Günter > >
