On Thursday 16 March 2006 04:38, Tobias Hilbricht wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 16. M?rz 2006 01:38 schrieb Christoph Sch?fer: > > > >> scientific book > > > > > > > > one thing you discovered is that Scribus isn't the right tool for > > > > scientific publications (yet) > > > > > > I thought LyX was also an equally viable WYSIWIG tool in this category > > > > "WYSIWYM" (What you see is what you mean). LyX is just a more comfortable > > way of using LaTeX. > > I fully support Christoph's notion that Scribus is not the proper tool for > a scientific book with lots of footnotes, cross references and literature > references and indices. > In many cases (La)TeX is much better for scientific publications, and LyX > is a very good entrance point which comes with a lot of good documentation > in a couple of languages. There is a tool writer2latex which can convert > your OO-document into LaTeX which you could edit in LyX then. > > Yours sincerely > > Tobias Hilbricht
Aother converter is rtf2latex2e which I use as a starting point when I get a MSWord Doc file or an rtf file from a client. But I then do my real work either in pdftex (plus eplain usually) or Context. The problem with Context is that the main manuals date back 6 or more years and gazillions of features have been added since. I find LaTeX too verbose and confining. And you have to chase around rounding up all the classes and styles you need. Context is newer and a bit better organized, with exception noted above. You can do almost anything in almost any competent program. The trick is to find the cost-effective application(s) for your workload and then invest time in learning them to a high degree of fluency. The lack of WYSIWYG is a virtue, not a sin. Authoring should be about content. The fine points of layout can come later. -- John Culleton Able Indexers and Typesetters.
