eric@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Eric Fielding) (05/11/89)
I am finally getting ready to put together the chapters of my dissertation, which have been written with a several different Mac word processing programs over the last 3 years, most recently MS Word 3.01. I was wondering if RSG 4.0 might be the best way to put everything together. The main question is whether RSG can read the style sheets already present in my Word files, or will I have to go through and redo all of the paragraph-level formatting? It seems like the ability to insert pages in the middle (our figures have to be interspersed) of the file and have the text flow around them is one thing that Word cannot do, but if I have to redo all of the formatting, it is not worth it. ++Eric Fielding fielding@geology.tn.cornell.edu eric@crnlthry.bitnet ...!cornell!batcomputer!eric
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (05/12/89)
>I am finally getting ready to put together the chapters of my dissertation, >which have been written with a several different Mac word processing programs >over the last 3 years, most recently MS Word 3.01. I was wondering if RSG 4.0 >might be the best way to put everything together. The main question is >whether RSG can read the style sheets already present in my Word files, or >will I have to go through and redo all of the paragraph-level formatting? RSG 4.0 doesn't read styles, it'll just load text. RSG 4.5 will read what they call tagged text, but that's not reading in the styles, it's a hack and I never use it because it's ugly (the only advantage is that you can export stuff in tagged text to edit and re-import without losing all the formatting). If the styles from Word are necessary, you'll need PageMaker. RSG 4.0 would handle a long document fine, so would pagemaker. I had endless problems trying to do long documents in RSG 4.5, however, so I can't recommend it. Chuq Von Rospach =|= Editor,OtherRealms =|= Member SFWA/ASFA chuq@apple.com =|= CI$: 73317,635 =|= AppleLink: CHUQ [This is myself speaking. No company can control my thoughts.] Bookends. What a wonderful thought.
kehr@felix.UUCP (Shirley Kehr) (05/15/89)
In article <7921@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> fielding@geology.tn.cornell.edu writes:
<It
<seems like the ability to insert pages in the middle (our figures have to
<be interspersed) of the file and have the text flow around them is one thing
<that Word cannot do, but if I have to redo all of the formatting, it is not
<worth it.
Do you have Word 4.0? It flows text around positioned objects on a page.
If you insert text in front of the positioned object, it will get pushed
to subsequent pages, but be positioned in the same place on the page. You
might be able to accomplish your goals with Word 4.0.
I played around with small positioned graphics over the weekend. I was
describing the function of a key and had the graphic at the left margin.
It was positioned inline, and was the height of approximately three text
lines. If the paragraph that goes with the graphic is short, you may want
to stick with side-by-side formatting.
One problem was a paragraph heading that followed the positioned graphic
and its text. Because Word was not yet ready to start the next line at the
left margin (given the space it leaves around the object, the paragraph
heading was pulled over to the right of the graphic. Adding an extra
carriage return put the heading back at the left margin but left too much
space between the positioned graphic and the paragraph head.
This isn't Word's fault. I just didn't have enough text to really flow
around the graphic. Another thing that can happen with short paragraphs
trying to wrap around a graphic is that the final (short) line of a
paragraph can end up wrapped back to the left margin and seem to be
disassociated from the rest of the paragraph that is right of the graphic.
I don't know if similar problems occur in page layout software. I just
found that I only converted some of the side-by-side paragraphs to use
positioned graphics.sbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten) (05/17/89)
In article <30507@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >If the styles from Word are necessary, you'll need PageMaker. RSG 4.0 would >handle a long document fine, so would pagemaker. I had endless problems >trying to do long documents in RSG 4.5, however, so I can't recommend it. On a related topic, I was wondering whether a bug-fix version of 4.5 had been released recently. The current version seems to have a good number of them, including the inability to run with the cache on, problems moving runaround text boxes, problems with auto-reflow of text from later pages to earlier pages, etc. Still, I'd rather use it than PageMaker, although unless things get fixed soon I may give Quark another look. -- Steve Baumgarten | "New York... when civilization falls apart, Davis Polk & Wardwell | remember, we were way ahead of you." cmcl2!esquire!sbb | esquire!sbb@cmcl2.nyu.edu | - David Letterman
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (05/19/89)
>On a related topic, I was wondering whether a bug-fix version of 4.5 >had been released recently. The current version (that I know of) is RSG 4.5a. Fixes the problem with FONDless fonts, plus other stuff I don't remember. Chuq Von Rospach =|= Editor,OtherRealms =|= Member SFWA/ASFA chuq@apple.com =|= CI$: 73317,635 =|= AppleLink: CHUQ [This is myself speaking. No company can control my thoughts.] This is....The Voice....of USENET....in special English. 1300UTC on 11525.
frank@mnetor.UUCP (Frank Kolnick) (05/20/89)
In article <1203@esquire.UUCP> sbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten) writes: >In article <30507@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >>If the styles from Word are necessary, you'll need PageMaker. RSG 4.0 would >>handle a long document fine, so would pagemaker. I had endless problems >>trying to do long documents in RSG 4.5, however, so I can't recommend it. > >On a related topic, I was wondering whether a bug-fix version of 4.5 >had been released recently. The current version seems to have a good >number of them, including the inability to run with the cache on, >problems moving runaround text boxes, problems with auto-reflow of >text from later pages to earlier pages, etc. > >Still, I'd rather use it than PageMaker, although unless things get >fixed soon I may give Quark another look. I just finished a 300 page book using Word and XPress. I did all the drafts (about six) in Word, then imported the works into XPress. It went very smoothly. XPress understands Word very well, including styles. The latest version also understands Word dictionaries. Some clean-up was necessary because XPress is much smarter about kerning, etc., so a few line and page breaks shifted. A good combination, although I've had a love/hate relationship with Word for years. On the other hand, if XPress gets much better I'll use it exclusively. (Version 2.1 even lets you edit kerning tables for each font.) (garbage) (garbage) (garbage) (garbage) (garbage) (garbage) (garbage) (garbage) (garbage) (garbage) (garbage) (garbage) (garbage) (garbage) -- Frank Kolnick, consulting for, and therefore expressing opinions independent of, Computer X UUCP: {allegra, linus}!utzoo!mnetor!frank -- Frank Kolnick, consulting for, and therefore expressing opinions independent of, Computer X UUCP: {allegra, linus}!utzoo!mnetor!frank