Re: Plain Text Files Preferred

["artgrtr8u" <stephenj@westpole.com>]

Before I make any more comments I'd just like to say that's it's
probably better to just go ahead with plain text, rather than get
caught up in a discussion about what we should use to edit.  I'd
rather concentrate on the rules and not the tools.  We can cross the
bridge of tables and charts when we come to them (maybe html or xml?).
 That being said...

I think one thing to take into account is the level of computer
literacy and familiarity with word processing features of the people
who are actually going to take part in this.  While a good word
processor will do all the things mentioned below, all of which would
be useful, it can also screw up a lot of the things listed below. 
I've seen documents edited by a few different people that looked like
they were auto-numbered, but actually there were three or four
separate number sets that people had manually edited to make
sequential.  This can get very confusing if people delete or cut and
paste sections without the proper care.  Once these things get screwed
up it can be rather annoying and time consuming to set them straight
again.

I hate to over-complicate things, but the more complex the editing
tool the more likely we need to have someone operate as an editor,
possibly even with some sort of version control and approval process.
 
--- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, Viktor Haag <vhaag@r...> wrote:
> rthorm@c... writes:
>  > I'm not sure what benefit we would get from RTF.
> 
> I can think of several reasons to use a proper word processor
> for this project:
> 
> 1) Tables. Rolegames have lots of tables, and creating and
>    manipulating tables in a word pro is much much easier than in
>    plain text.
> 
> 2) Cross references. DQ is *littered* with cross-references;
>    having a word processor take care of this for you is *far
>    easier* than trying to manage cross references by hand.
> 
> 3) Auto-numbering, especially with section numbering. Trying to
>    keep numbering consistent by hand in long documents is
>    devilishly difficult, especially if you have more than one
>    person working on the project. Using a word-processor that
>    can handle this for you takes care of a lot of that worry.
> 
> 4) Building lists of tables, sections. Can be automated with a
>    word processor.
> 
> 5) Building indexes. Good word-processors can provide good tools
>    to help with this and make the job much easier.
> 
> 6) Some limited amount of formatting actually makes it easier to
>    work on the document. With visual clues in place (like
>    different faces and weights used for headings, bullets,
>    indented text, emphasis, and the like) it's actually easier to
>    write large documents because these visual clues provide you
>    with non-"word" context that's valuable for the writer.
> 
> 7) Automated error checking. Nothing can replace the need for a
>    good proof-read, but automated spelling and grammar checking
>    can make it far easier to produce a cleaner first draft. 
> 
> If what you're worried about is access, then I think Open Office
> is an excellent suggested tool -- it has decent features, and is
> available on many platforms, and it is available for free.
> 
> There are other open source word processors available as well,
> but I seem to think that Open Office provides the best feature
> set at the moment.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Viktor Haag : Software & Information Design : Research In Motion
>                               +--+
>  Disclaimer mandated by employer: "This transmission may contain
> confidential or privileged material. Any use of this information
> by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you
>   have received this transmission in error, please immediately
>     reply to the sender and delete this information from your
> system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this
>  transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may
>                           be unlawful."