> In any case, without much supporting evidence[1], I'd say that if you
> are trying to get to OpenOffice this way, the road is probably paved
> with thorns.
>
> Nick
>
> [1] I just tried a simple org->latex->oo transformation on Ubuntu 8.10,
> with the default tex4ht distribution for this platform that synaptic
> gave me: I tried for a few minutes without success. But I am a complete
> ignoramus as far as OO goes, so it may very well have been my error.\
>

On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Nick Dokos <nicholas.dokos@hp.com> wrote:

> Charles Philip Chan <cpchan@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
> > Nick Dokos <nicholas.dokos@hp.com> writes:
> >
> > > It is not just one file and afaik, *none* of it is written in
> > > Perl. Some of it is C, some of it is TeX, some of it is Java
> > > (apparently: I haven't looked at tex4ht for some years and I don't
> > > remember any Java in there before, but there is some now), a large
> > > amount is just text config files.
> >
> > I didn't take a look at the code, but mk4ht is written in perl:
> >
> > ,----
> > | ls -la /usr/share/texmf/bin/noarch/mk4ht
> > | lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 47 2010-09-07 02:10
> /usr/share/texmf/bin/noarch/mk=
> > 4ht -> ../../../../share/texmf/scripts/tex4ht/mk4ht.pl
> > `----
> >
>
> Oh, OK, I stand corrected: there is *one* Perl file in there. The rest
> is as I described it, except that there's also a ton of shell
> scripts. This in particular is perhaps a little worrisome for Win32,
> unless one is running cygwin. Not sure whether Vitton's notes address
> this.
>
> In any case, without much supporting evidence[1], I'd say that if you
> are trying to get to OpenOffice this way, the road is probably paved
> with thorns.
>
> Nick
>
> [1] I just tried a simple org->latex->oo transformation on Ubuntu 8.10,
> with the default tex4ht distribution for this platform that synaptic
> gave me: I tried for a few minutes without success. But I am a complete
> ignoramus as far as OO goes, so it may very well have been my error.
>
I've had mixed results depending on the complexity of the original org
document.  one of us should really write a proper direct exporter, but I am
such a slow (and rotten) coder, and so behind on so many projects, that it
is not going to be me.   There is a rudimentary muse-mode exporter that
might serve as a partial inspiration:
http://osdir.com/ml/emacs.muse.general/2008-02/msg00009.html
also the new rewritten export engine (what is that called again) looks a
little easier to work with than what's in current org...

if someone does do this please let us all know, I think there are plenty of
people who would really like to use it.
Matt


>
> _______________________________________________
> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
> Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
>