burgoyne@eng.umd.edu (John R. Burgoyne) (12/18/90)
Has anyone successfully created other than trivial .RTF files using something other than one of the Word family of word processors? I have WordPerfect 5.1 and was hoping I wouldn't need to switch, but WP 5.1 can't automatically generate anything like the .RTF files included with HELPEX. What does Rich Text Format mean for a WordPerfect user? A big headache? Robert
spolsky-joel@cs.yale.edu (Joel Spolsky) (12/18/90)
In article <1990Dec18.044017.17533@eng.umd.edu> burgoyne@eng.umd.edu (John R. Burgoyne) writes: >Has anyone successfully created other than trivial .RTF >files using something other than one of the Word family >of word processors? If you get the Word for Windows Technical Reference manual ($20 or so from Microsoft Press) there is a complete description of the .RTF format. With this in hand you shouldn't have too much trouble writing your own .RTF files (they are straight ASCII). -- Joel Spolsky // And these streets, Quiet as a sleeping army spolsky@cs.yale.edu // Send their battered dreams to heaven. _Paul Simon
tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu (Tom Haapanen) (12/18/90)
John R. Burgoyne <burgoyne@eng.umd.edu> writes: > Has anyone successfully created other than trivial .RTF > files using something other than one of the Word family > of word processors? The Legend word processor is supposed to support the RTF format; I don't think Ami Pro does (maybe an Ami Pro user can correct me if I'm wrong). Indeed, the RTF format is ASCII, but there it's RIDICULOUS to think of writing real help documents (100-200K) in RTF by hand! Right now, I think WfW is the best bet. [ \tom haapanen --- university of waterloo --- tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu ] [ "i don't even know what street canada is on" -- al capone ]
spolsky-joel@cs.yale.edu (Joel Spolsky) (12/19/90)
In article <1990Dec18.133649.8550@watserv1.waterloo.edu> tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu (Tom Haapanen) writes: > >Indeed, the RTF format is ASCII, but there it's RIDICULOUS to think of >writing real help documents (100-200K) in RTF by hand! Right now, I think >WfW is the best bet. Writing RTF is not any harder than writing, say, in TeX or troff. If you really want to save the cost of WfW it is not at all unreasonable to do this. Joel Spolsky // And these streets, Quiet as a sleeping army spolsky@cs.yale.edu // Send their battered dreams to heaven. _Paul Simon
burgoyne@eng.umd.edu (John R. Burgoyne) (12/19/90)
tom haapanen replies: >Indeed, the RTF format is ASCII, but it's RIDICULOUS to think of >writing real help documents (100-200K) in RTF by hand! Right now, I >think WfW is the best bet. and Joel Spolsky counters: >Writing RTF is not any harder than writing, say, in TeX or troff. If >you really want to save the cost of WfW it is not at all unreasonable >to do this. AND THE VERDICT IS: tom is right. Sorry Joel, you submit a lot of nice postings to this group and we all appreciate your time and effort in doing so. I have personally benefited several times from other postings you made. HERE'S WHY: Take a look at the sample .RTF files that come with HELPEX. I can make sense of them, and I can write macros to insert codes etc. as I wish, but it would take too much time. Tonight, I purchased Word for Windows at our school's bookstore for $169. I am using it right now. I was able to make a great start on my help project in a couple of hours using W4W. Further, I could have saved $40 if I had ordered it through our Computer Emporium, but that would have taken several weeks. (Instant Gratification is nice, not needing to worry about matching text formatting commands is wonderful!) It is kind of a shame that MS has us over a barrel on this one. Thanks everybody, see you on the net. Robert