Re: [dev] Suckless word processing solution?

From: Kris Maglione <>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:25:45 -0400

On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 11:00:14PM +0200, markus schnalke wrote:
>I read in another mail that you need the Word-editable output for
>proof-readers or someone similar. Is there plain-text sufficient?
>Because then you could simply generate output with nroff. (I suppose
>Word can deal with plain-text files.)

Acrobat Pro has proofing support for PDFs. There are some free
PDF editors, too, but they're generally horrendous. Okular
supports annotations, but it's KDE-only, and it can't save them
to the PDF, only in Okular-specific format.

I do my proofing on dead trees, personally.

>btw: You say, it's for scientific papers ... I wonder: don't they use
>Latex for them? It's so common in this field of action.

You'd be surprised how poorly supported it is.

Kris Maglione
Do not worry about your difficulties in mathematics, I assure you that
mine are greater.
	--Albert Einstein
Received on Tue Sep 29 2009 - 22:25:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue Sep 29 2009 - 22:36:02 UTC