What point am I arguing? I find Word to be nearly impenetrable in its options, it's much much easier to write when I don't have all that nonsense to deal with. Since I only very rarely deliver formatted documents, I write and deliver most textual work as ASCII text. When I do have to deliver formatted documents, I prepare them in whatever works well for me and deliver them in PDF. The tools are irrelevant as long as the product is what the client wants. If they want a .doc file, I output the document as a .doc as well and supply that along with the PDF.
Having had many interactions with a many writers, most prefer to write in something simple and leave formatting up to the book designer or magazine editor. On those occasions when a document requires a highly standardized and complex format, like the technical notes I used to write at Apple, a good word processor or page layout application is invaluable, I agree. But that's not the writing part of the exercise ... even when I was doing that work, I did most of my writing in text and then inserted the text into the document template for finishing. Perhaps this is Pentax next move: Simple, reliable word processing tools with great core competencies... cheap. ;-) ;-) Godfrey On Oct 16, 2007, at 10:09 AM, Tom C wrote: > Of course there is a use for plain ASCII. There's also a use for > formatted > text documents. > > Not sure why you want to argue the point. It's obvious that > formatting a > document is much easier in a word processor than when using plain > ASCII, > which is why word processing software exists. > > But you know this. :-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
