Re: NB filter question

[Leslie Bialler lb136@xxxxxxxx]

"Richard A. Sherer" wrote:

> 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.
>

Ah. If you ever run into that issue, I'd appreciate hearing.

>



> >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.
>

Indeed. You've probably noticed that WordPerfect works in a way similar to
XyWrite, in that there are obvious codes that can be seen if you open the file as
ASCII text. But, of course, a Word file has garbage at the top and at the bottom
with the text in between. Again, this provides some insight into Gates's mind. He
doesn't like to reveal.

>
> >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.

Really??!! I will try that.


> 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.
>

Interesting question.


> 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.)
>

Yeah. I have those old WFW filters. They worked reasonably well although the
converted file is always full of redundant codes. But: I have macros to take care
of that situation.

>
>

> 

> 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.
>

Typical.

--
Leslie Bialler, Columbia University Press
lb136@xxxxxxxx
212-666-1000 x7109 (phone) 212-316-3100 (fax)
> http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cup