From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alan L Tyree Subject: Re: Index of cases Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2013 08:55:33 +1000 Message-ID: <522D0065.50306@gmail.com> References: <522BB194.7060705@gmail.com> <874n9wdj32.fsf@gmail.com> <522C16AD.9030102@gmail.com> <87a9jnzt5h.fsf@gmail.com> <8761ubzs8d.fsf@gmail.com> <874n9vq7q2.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50305) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VInsv-0002oQ-LK for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Sep 2013 18:55:18 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VInsq-0007rX-Vi for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Sep 2013 18:55:13 -0400 Received: from mail-pd0-x22e.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22e]:47734) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VInsq-0007r1-Ni for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Sep 2013 18:55:08 -0400 Received: by mail-pd0-f174.google.com with SMTP id y13so5421804pdi.19 for ; Sun, 08 Sep 2013 15:55:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <874n9vq7q2.fsf@gmail.com> List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: David Rogers Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org, Jambunathan K On 09/09/13 08:17, David Rogers wrote: > Jambunathan K writes: > >> Jambunathan K writes: >> >>>> I have (I think) got them to agree to accept plain text, but I would >>>> like to make it just as plain as possible. >>> Oh, Ok. Looks like there is "exchange of ideas" between the author and >>> publisher... >> In lighter vein and tongue-in-cheek sort of way... >> >> It seems like publishers are making you go in circles. >> >> You were after epub. Now you are after Word. It is only a matter of >> time, before a publisher insists on an LaTex, at which point you would >> have done the full-circle and savour a moment of epiphany. > > I'm wondering something a bit different: > > It sounds as if the publisher actually demands Word documents, and had > never asked for anything but that. > > I'm swallowing hard before I say this... > > Why not just use Word? > Well, the book is already in LaTeX. I chose that back at the 4th edition and am now in the process of preparing the 8th. Earlier editions were in Word, and the new Word can't even read the early manuscripts. I regularly lost work using Word. The usual complaints. I had special needs at the time: the publisher uses numbered paragraphs of the chapter-number variety, eg, [12-125], and index entries should point to the relevant paragraph. Rearranging paragraphs or inserting a new one made a mess of *everything* when using Word. My nephew, a mathematician, suggested that I have a look at LaTeX and helped me get started. I'm very, very happy with using LaTeX for writing. The usual reasons: enforced structure, automatic adjustments when rearranging material, embedded index entries, automatic generation of tables, the ability to use version control, etc. Maintaining a 700+ page book with a zillion cross references, index entries, and multiple indexes became a breeze. I could concentrate on writing. The only problem has been interaction with editors, and I am now senior enough to insist that the editor edit my files directly. I'll get him/her to use TexStudio or something similar to edit my files directly. This will deal with the last problem: that of introduced errors through transcribing editor's corrections. I would abandon the book rather than go back to Word :-). End of rant. Cheers, Alan -- Alan L Tyree http://www2.austlii.edu.au/~alan Tel: 04 2748 6206 sip:typhoon@iptel.org