At 9:05 AM -0400 9/17/07, David W. Fenton wrote:
But a journal accepting submissings for publication has to be more
versatile in what it can accept,
But, if they have acceptance standards, why can they not enforce them?
To put it in very Victorian terms: If their standards say that they
On 20 Sep 2007 at 4:42, Dennis W. Manasco wrote:
At 9:05 AM -0400 9/17/07, David W. Fenton wrote:
But a journal accepting submissings for publication has to be more
versatile in what it can accept,
But, if they have acceptance standards, why can they not enforce them?
A red herring.
At 3:43 PM -0400 9/20/07, David W. Fenton wrote:
My bet is that they're going to get DOCX submissions anyway, and then
spend an inordinate amount of time rejecting those submissions, and,
in the case of articles they want to publish, they'll be helping the
people convert to DOC, or they'll be
On 20 Sep 2007 at 16:14, John Howell wrote:
I'm hesitant to download and install a converter that's still in
Beta. Is that irrational?
Not as a general principle, but in the case of a converter, it should
be completely safe, I'd think.
--
David W. Fenton
At 7:06 PM -0400 9/20/07, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 20 Sep 2007 at 16:14, John Howell wrote:
I'm hesitant to download and install a converter that's still in
Beta. Is that irrational?
Not as a general principle, but in the case of a converter, it should
be completely safe, I'd think.
At 7:25 PM -0400 9/16/07, David W. Fenton wrote:
Thus, in the original context, you should have called the preference
for doc over docx a stupid difference that makes no difference.
David --
I entered the conversation with Ken's note about (to my
understanding) Microsoft's losing in its
On 17 Sep 2007 at 4:40, Dennis W. Manasco wrote:
At 7:25 PM -0400 9/16/07, David W. Fenton wrote:
Thus, in the original context, you should have called the preference
for doc over docx a stupid difference that makes no difference.
I entered the conversation with Ken's note about (to my
At 1:40 PM -0400 9/14/07, David W. Fenton wrote:
It's not about converters.
It's about assured, accurate and complete readability of the original files.
Then that criticism applies the the Microsoft Word *.doc format more
than it does to *.docx,
Yes.
But, though many use .doc, .docx
On 16 Sep 2007 at 5:45, Dennis W. Manasco wrote:
At 1:40 PM -0400 9/14/07, David W. Fenton wrote:
It's not about converters.
It's about assured, accurate and complete readability of the original
files.
Then that criticism applies the the Microsoft Word *.doc format more
than it
At 12:43 PM +0200 9/14/07, shirling neueweise wrote:
__In perpetuity.__
this is a utopic ideal that so far has seen no concrete reality
7-bit ASCII.
Works now, always has and always will.
It will be understood until the fall of civilization.
After that no one will give a squat about
David W. Fenton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm shocked that people are so ill-informed that they'd just reject
these file formats when the converters are so easily available for
so many different versions of Word.
Nuh Uh.
It's not about converters.
It's about assured, accurate and complete
__In perpetuity.__
this is a utopic ideal that so far has seen no concrete reality, only
a number of variations on very long-lasting.
It doesn't matter that converters can translate the files today.
What matters is whether the files can be reliably, completely and
accurately read ten,
On 14 Sep 2007 at 4:15, Dennis W. Manasco wrote:
David W. Fenton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm shocked that people are so ill-informed that they'd just reject
these file formats when the converters are so easily available for
so many different versions of Word.
Nuh Uh.
It's not about
13 matches
Mail list logo
