Re: NB filter question

["Richard A. Sherer" rasherer@xxxxxxxx]

At 02:16 PM 12/01/99 -0500, you wrote:

>One minor issue: did you do a search for a hard return in the usual XyWrite
>fashion? They probably were not the 3-bit XyWrite characters. This may be an
>issue, but maybe not.

I didn't. That's never been a problem for me, so I wasn't watching for it.

[snip]

>Ah but here's the catch: for simple documents this would be fine; but when
you
>have documents coded with levels of headings, italics, superscripts,
footnotes,
>and cool-looking typefaces tossed into the brew at the whim of the author
>(merely because they look cool to him) the process becomes far more
>complicated. There is no question in my mind that what you say can be
done, but
>if there are filters that will do the job more efficiently, the whole process
>becomes wheel-reinventing.

Absolutely, but no more wheel-inventing than some of the machinations one
must go through to get Word or WordPerfect to jump through editing hoops.
Aside from the dying XyWrite, there is no ideal word processor.

>Anyway, I find that the easiest thing to do is call the RTF document up in
>Word. Save the file as a Word 6.0 file (for convenience's sake) and then call
>it up in NB. Voila!

I just tried opening the RTF file in Wordpad, which is a standard feature
of the Windows operating systems. I then copied it to the clipboard and
transferred it to Nota Bene, formatting intact with no coding showing.
Works like a charm. I don't know what the upper memory limit of Wordpad is,
but using it might be a cheaper alternative for those of us who don't want
to fork over more bucks for Word just to use it for intermediate transfers.
I had less luck with Keyview Pro; when I transferred the file, the hard
returns all disappeared. Of course, if one has Word for Word, which hasn't
been updated in years, it is possible to convert an RTF file to XyWrite and
then open it in Nota Bene. (At least I got a XyWrite application in so the
discussion wouldn't be TOO off-topic for this list.)

>As for the issue of whether RTF is/is not known in the academic world, my
>answer would be a resounding not known. At one point I made the attempt to
ask
>several of my authors to do a save/as to RTF, which struck me as the
equivalent
>of reminding them to turn a circuit-breaker switch to full off before turning
>it on again to restore power, but no--but I was met with duhs.
Fuhgedddaboudit!

Ditto in journalism. Most of my colleagues know one word processor, period.
Usually it is the one imposed by the publisher's IT department, and most
often that's Word. I've found that when I ask editors what format they want
manuscripts in, they start looking for the white-coated attendants. The
usual answer is, "Let me check on that and get back to you." That's why
I've amassed a collection of filtering programs over the years. I've never
had an editor tell me to use RTF. Ever.

Richard A. Sherer
rasherer@xxxxxxxx