Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!rex!ukma!dftsrv!heawk1!hoepfner From: hoepfner@heawk1.gsfc.nasa.gov (Patrick Hoepfner) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc Subject: Re: If you are going to post to comp.binaries.mac, read this!!! Message-ID: Date: 13 Apr 91 19:39:12 GMT References: <1991Apr5.174838.13130@umbc3.umbc.edu> <1991Apr8.152626.27461@midway.uchicago.edu> <1991Apr10.212833.7203@phri.nyu.edu> Sender: news@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov Lines: 31 roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: [ ... deleted stuff ... ] >> If you've written a manual with more complicated formatting, then I must >> >reluctantly< agree that providing it in MacWrite format is more polite >> than using MS Word. > What would be really nice is if each word processor came with a >"read-only" version that was freely distributable. That way, you could >write your manuals using whatever program you liked best and distribute >them with the "document reader" version so people could read them. Said >version should allow people to view and print documents, but not change or >save them. This is what Claris' XTND is all about. This would allow every word processor to read and write every other! Each word processor would be responsible for creating that little file that is placed in the appropriate place so that you can then read another file format. The other option is to use Microsoft's RTF format. This is something that can even be e-mailed with out the need to BinHex it. The only WPs which don't read RTF are MacWrite (before MacWrite II) and Nisus. If these allowed RTF reading/writing then RTF would be the format of choice. Just my two cents... +--------------------------+---------------------------------------+ / Patrick Hoepfner | NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center \ / America Online: PatrickH9 | Internet: hoepfner@heasfs.gsfc.nasa.gov \ +-----------------------------+------------------------------------------+