Re: NB filter question

["Richard A. Sherer" rasherer@xxxxxxxx]

I saved one of my XyWrite manuscripts in .rtf format using Word for Word.
Then I opened it in Nota Bene using the Nota Bene for Windows option
instead of Autodetect. Two quick CI commands got rid of the unrecognized
coding at the end of paragraphs and the \tab at the beginnings of the next
lines. I'm sure that those commands could be converted to a macro easily
enough. The other garbage coding at the top of the file was easily deleted
as well. So, it took me an extra 30 seconds or so to open the file and
would have taken less time if I had had the macros prepared. Lots of people
on this list routinely run macros in XyWrite anyway. So, why is it such a
burden to have to do it in Nota Bene? Even with the relatively minor
inconvenience, it's still a better program than Word. Would you rather use
a clunky program like Word just because it recognizes one particular file
format?

Richard A. Sherer
rasherer@xxxxxxxx


At 08:41 AM 11/29/99 +0900, Rene von Rentzell wrote:

>Of course I can work around it, but why? I want my word processor to be
>have a filter for the most widely used intermediate format of all.
>Also, out goes again the option of recommending NB to others. Just like
>recommending a XY-Win is impossible because of the absurd installation
>procedure, I can not possibly recommend a program that balks on RTF files.
>I would be laughed out of the office.
>About 90% of my jobs come in as RTF. Is RTF really unheard of in the
>academic world?