I suspect part of the problem is that people don't like having all those codes intermixed with document content. Of course it's very useful to have them when you're actually dealing with them. But, when you're just reading and editing, they get in the way. It would be helpful if our text based editors like nano, emacs, and vim could hide and expose these on command, but I don't believe these editors work that way. As for converting WordPerfect files to text, there's some good news. You can now safely toss out that old machine and switch to libwp. Chuck Hallenbeck writes: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi people, > > Lots of folks seem to be missing Word Perfect 5.1 pretty badly. I was > going to say they seem to pine for it, but that would be too bad!!! > > What many Linux users do for "word processing" (as opposed to just plain > old "editing") is to use a markup language like XML, where the fancy > stuff is identified in your file by the appearance of tags, much like > those in an html file. In fact HTML is just another markup language when > it comes to that. So you would prepare your document using a plain text > editor, my favorite is "nano", and then use Latex or TeX to render your > material for fancy printing. > > Using this method, you can get all the features of WP while sticking to > a plain text console editor. You do not have to "reveal codes" because > they are right there in front of you, set off by angle brackets or > whatever. Nano supports most of the editing convenience you would need, > such as marking a block and copying or deleting it, global replace with > or without regular expressions, file insertions, provisions for a > spellchecker, paragraph reshaping, and the like. > > The TeX facility is topnotch, and will satisfy the most demanding > wordsmith, with a zillion font styles to select in many languages, > including Klingon! And yet you are ALWAYS working in a plain text > environment with files that are readily sharable and mailable, and are > NOT proprietary. > > In fact one wonders why word processor users don't voluntarily scrap > those dinosaur applications for the Linux strategy. I guess it is really > difficult to abandon an old friend, especially when it has served so > well, but there is a better alternative just sitting there waiting to be > used. > > Another advantage of sticking with a plain text editor such as "nano" is > that it serves multiple purposes. In my case it is my default composing > editor in Pine, replacing Pico. I also use it for a general purpose > programming editor. > > Lots of power users would choose emacs over nano, but still rely in > placing tags in the file to mark off words, phrases, or passages for > special presentation effects. Either way, you can get along quite nicely > without Word Perfect and still produce world class documents. > > The only thing you may need WP for is to convert other people's old > fashioned WP files into a more modern form! <smile> > > Chuck > -- Janina Sajka, Director Technology Research and Development Governmental Relations Group American Foundation for the Blind (AFB) Email: janina at afb.net Phone: (202) 408-8175
