Re: [docbook-apps] Docbook to WordML

[Bruce D'Arcus <bdarcus@fastmail.fm>]

On Jan 26, 2004, at 10:49 AM, Christian Roth wrote:

> Another advantage is that with RTF, in contrast to WordML, you are
> targeting not only Word 2003, but also legacy applications like Word  
> 97,
> Word 2000, and many custom components using the reasonably documented  
> RTF
> format as their storage/interchange format (like Mac OS X's TextEdit  
> and
> the underlying engine).

I still go back to HTML: it is possible using CSS and class attributes  
to create output that Word will import as if it is a native doc:  
everything will be tagged with a Word style so long as it has a class  
attribute on it.  This is more effective than any RTF-from-DB solution  
I've seen, and it's easy.  Since it is (almost) standard HTML, it will  
display well in browsers as well.

Also, Phil wrote:

> Given the amount of feedback from others on this list, perhaps I _am_  
> the only one with this particular issue. Looks like I've got a project  
> to keep me out of the sunlight for a few months ;o)

You're not the only one.  The publishers I deal with (in the academic  
world) will not accept anything they cannot open cleanly in Word.   
Period.  I'd be happy if people will test out the stylesheet mods I  
worked on and get them in better shape (they're a bit hack-ish).  XSL  
files and description at:

https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php? 
func=detail&aid=810043&group_id=21935&atid=373750

I've also posted a CSS file here:

http://www.users.muohio.edu/darcusb/files/DB-MSW.css.tar.gz

Bruce