[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [docbook-apps] Docbook to WordML
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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]