Re: Conversion experience

["Russ W. Urquhart" urqurw@xxxxxxxx]

I've had degree's of success translating from both rtf & wp.

It would seem, however, that the wp conversion ought to work better. The
reason i say this is that i remember when Word for windows first came out.
MS was very adamant that all WP users, of which my company was at the time,
know that their document would translate over completely to Word.

Rtf, on the otherhand, always seems kind of nebulous to me since MS has a
hand in the development of that standard. It's been my experience that that
means they also kind of define how parts of rtf are formatted in word.

I recently had someone send me an rtf file from Word 2000. While this
document didn't have anything out of the ordinary, and nothing that i
couldn't do in my old copy of Word 95, the file had some formatting
problems. (It's when things like this happen that i do believe that they get
us to buy the next version by putting in JUST ENOUGH incompatibilities.)


Russ




On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 08:55:57PM -0500, TBaehr@xxxxxxxx wrote:
> I thought this was worth sharing:
> I have a 100+ page ms. of my father-in-law's autobiography, full of place
> names in Germany and Italy, with several kinds of accents. (Xy4DOS, Speedo
> fonts.)
>
> I wanted a Word version of the ms. and did the following:
>
> SaveAs to WordPerfect 5.1 using Xy's on-board converter.
> Open in Word 7.
>
> Word took forever converting from WP 5.1 to Word 7, but when it was done I
> had most of the formatting intact -- *including* almost all the accented
> characters (except a with grave, capital E with grave, and o with grave).
>
> I've said this before: WP for DOS is a great intermediary for conversions --
> it works (for me) better than RTF.
>
> Tim Baehr
> tbaehr@xxxxxxxx