Scott Norwood wrote:
> Sorry for the horribly delayed response,
[likewise]
> but I would like to mention that
> many of us do indeed use LaTeX for our FAQs. It is by far the easiest way
> to generate multiple formats without a lot of hand editing of each version.
> ...I have a simple Makefile that, from the LaTeX source, creates DVI and
> Postscript files, an HTML file (using latex2html), and a text file...
William M. Klein wrote:
> I assume that you are in a non-Microsoft environment. MS Word *certainly* does
> this easily. You simply "click" on a "SAVE AS" option and decide whether you
> want it saved as text (DOS, Windos, or ASCII - with or without formatting), or
> HTML or Word or a variety of other options.
Kade Hansson wrote:
> Last time I looked, the crud Word (97) output could hardly pass as HTML.
Peter den Haan wrote:
> Last time I looked, it was quite simply _not_ HTML. It was a markup language
> that happens to display in Internet Explorer, but which flouted the very
> basics of the W3C HTML specification...
Tom Neff wrote:
> Word 2000 generates a usable core of HTML embedded in a thick and rancid
> stew of MS-only fluff markups, basically designed to ensure that a Word doc
> can "hibernate" as HTML and still magically regain its Word-ness in case
> that's how the user chooses to send files around.
Ah, is that it. Makes a certain amount of sense, I guess.
Actually, however, all Microsoft bashing aside, the quality of
Word's HTML conversion has little bearing on the original
question. What Scott Norwood was talking about was maintaining
one master document and converting to *lots* of formats, and
I think a tool like TeX is more likely to be a winner there.
I suspect TeX is able to generate more of the formats that
people are likely to want to distribute a document in (though
a Microsoft tool might admittedly have an edge when it came
to Windows .hlp files), and furthermore, if you really want to do
a good job at generating multiple renditions, it turns out that
wysiwyg isn't really what you want, because wys isn't what you're
gonna get under every one of the derived formats. Markup, tedious
though it can be, wins out.
> Macromedia Dreamweaver (Mac/PC) contains an excellent De-Word-izer, which
> isn't much comfort to Unix world,
But it's good to know about in any case. Thanks.
Steve Summit
scs@eskimo.com
-- Programming Challenge #6: Don't just fix the bug. See http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/challenge/.************************************************************* To unsubscribe send a message to majordomo@faqs.org as
unsubscribe faq-maintainers fill-in-your-email-address-here *************************************************************
[
FAQ Archive |
Search FAQ Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet References
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000
]
© Copyright The Internet FAQ Consortium, 1997-2000
All rights reserved