Re: [dq-rules] Re: Plain Text Files Preferred

["J. K. Hoffman" <ryumaou@sbcglobal.net>]

Oh, by all means, go with what is simplest for 
everyone before efforts get diverted.  I just remember 
how useful the graphics were for certain things, like 
the combat system.  Likewise, tables for, well, just 
about everything!  Tables can be done with tabs, of 
course, but graphics are something else.

That being said, flat text *is* the most universal of 
formats.  Anything "special" can be done last minute 
by whomever, in whatever way they want.  HTML might, 
ultimately, be best for that, all things considered.  
In any case, I'm sorry to have muddied the waters at 
all.  My offer for help with formating and assorted 
tech stuff still stands, though.  

Good luck!
Jim
--- Original Message ---
From: "artgrtr8u" <stephenj@westpole.com>
To: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [dq-rules] Re: Plain Text Files Preferred

>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."
>
>
>
>------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -------
>
>To Post a message, send it to:   dq-rules@eGroups.com
>To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: dq-rules-
unsubscribe@eGroups.com 
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> 
>

-- 
"It's better to light one candle
   than to curse the darkness."
-Chinese Proverb and The Motto of the Christophers
                      http://www.christophers.org