[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [dq-rules] Edi's Work and File Formats

Hello--
I'm also a firm supporter of using spaces and fixed-width fonts and text files as a last-common denominator way of making information as readily available to all as possible. 
I've tried (with varying degrees of success) to do the same when putting tabular information into the DQ Newsletter.  (I often ran into problems going from the text file editor to the email program, which is why so many Newsletters are still munged up in appearance, but I agree with John that spaces rather than tabs is ultimately the way to go.)

That said, it does take an enormous amount of time to do that kind of layout in text files.
I don't really disagree, and I do suppose it is the best way to go about it, but as you said, it takes time. I don't think I've got that kind of patience normally.
I don't think it's necessary to have perfect formatting in a text file when the topic is still just a draft under discussion. Reasonable adjustments can be made by those who don't natively support any of the formats you have used. As it is, I think that putting the work out there in four different formats is going to heroic lengths to accommodate others, and I applaud your attempts to be universally accessible.
Well, I thought that having the formatting down as perfectly as possible now will save time later as there only has to be tweaking, not designing a layout from scratch. As for providing it in four different formats, it was the first transition from OO to text format that was the most pain in the arse, OO to MS Word wasn't bad at all (or almost at all) because of OO support for MS file formats. I prefer to use software libre whenever possible, but I know many others don't, so I'll try to provide stuff in the most common formats so that they won't have to do a painstaking format transfer. I've had to do that for stuff on my own enough times that I thoroughly loathe it, and it wouldn't be nice to make others suffer the same. 



It would be a good thing to have a clean text file that anyone could use in whatever way they like, but that may have to wait until we have a final version complete.  But I think most everyone will be able to use a .PDF version (John K being the one exception in this group's active contingent that I am aware of).
If someone is willing to go to the trouble, they will have my blessing and gratitude. Right now I'm a little wrung out where the CWT is concerned, as most people here will probably understand. As a personal choice, I don't like PDFs, and avoid them unless it is just to print something out. 


I have been a supporter of using text files and .PDFs as a way of making information as widely available to others as possible.  Those are the two formats that I think the undertakings of this group should be made available. (Drafts can circulate in other formats, but realize that you may be cutting some people out by doing so).
It's probably good policy, as those are platform independent. Whatever stuff I will produce will be in OO and I'll make the Word and text formats also available to get good coverage, that way most people should be able to view them. OO also has the advantage of being a cross-platform application.
There is also the point that if something that is adopted as the community standard, having it in PDF is advantageous, because then it'll be set in stone and modifying it will require constructing a new version, so if people want to tweak it for their own campaigns, the other formats can be used for that while an official version stays fixed. 

Edi

*****************

Rodger Thorm wrote:
I'm also a firm supporter of using spaces and fixed-width fonts and text files as a last-common denominator way of making information as readily available to all as possible. 
I've tried (with varying degrees of success) to do the same when putting tabular information into the DQ Newsletter.  (I often ran into problems going from the text file editor to the email program, which is why so many Newsletters are still munged up in appearance, but I agree with John that spaces rather than tabs is ultimately the way to go.)
That said, it does take an enormous amount of time to do that kind of layout in text files. I don't think it's necessary to have perfect formatting in a text file when the topic is still just a draft under discussion. Reasonable adjustments can be made by those who don't natively support any of the formats you have used. As it is, I think that putting the work out there in four different formats is going to heroic lengths to accommodate others, and I applaud your attempts to be universally accessible. 
It would be a good thing to have a clean text file that anyone could use in whatever way they like, but that may have to wait until we have a final version complete.  But I think most everyone will be able to use a .PDF version (John K being the one exception in this group's active contingent that I am aware of).

I have been a supporter of using text files and .PDFs as a way of making information as widely available to others as possible.  Those are the two formats that I think the undertakings of this group should be made available. (Drafts can circulate in other formats, but realize that you may be cutting some people out by doing so).

 --Rodger