On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Joe Zeff <joe at zeff.us> wrote: > On 06/02/2011 05:30 PM, John Ghormley KJ4UFG wrote: > >> Possibly a good idea, but I have a question. What does one gain from >> importing from an open source format that makes it better than a simpler >> copy and paste, if one doesn't import styles? >> > > If you're importing a file that somebody sent you there's no need to wait > for it to open up in whatever word processor you'd use to edit it. If > you're importing multiple files the time adds up rapidly. And, even if it's > only one file it's less steps you have to take. For that matter, why do you > find copy and paste better? >
First, I NEVER import anything I have not read. Therefore, I will open any document from a writer in either LibreOffice or Google Docs to read it before I pull it into my Scribus .sla file. Frequently, there may be several days between receiving the contributions for multiple writers and when I actually compose the issue. But, I generally read the contributions upon receiving them in email. So, to answer your question, I like copy and paste because I can import the entire document to the Story Editor with the sequence, Ctrl-A, Ctrl-C, and Ctrl-V. Doesn't get much faster than that. And, since most of my contributors are Windoze users, their contributions are in Word .doc format or .rtf or even .txt. I can copy and paste from ANY format with exactly the same keystroke sequence. So, I like copy and paste as opposed to importing for that reason. It may be that it fits my work habits better than trying to locate filenames in a list and then deal with the import results. > -- > John Ghormley KJ4UFG Editor, SERA *Repeater Journal* Walkertown, NC USA editor at sera.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.scribus.net/pipermail/scribus/attachments/20110603/1ed5c98c/attachment.html>
