Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 19:18:36 -0800
Reply-To: kmself@IX.NETCOM.COM
Sender: "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From: kmself@IX.NETCOM.COM
Subject: Re: An unrelated question - Word97/2000 to Word95
In-Reply-To: <20010131013253.16638.qmail@web215.mail.yahoo.com>; from
ed_cabanero@YAHOO.COM on Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 05:32:53PM -0800
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature";
on Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 05:32:53PM -0800, Ed Cabanero (ed_cabanero@YAHOO.COM) wrote:
> Hi SAS-L!
>
> We recently attempted to convert a Word97/2000 clinical trials
> manuscript into Word95 for backwards compatibility using "Save
> As..Word95=Doc".
>
> Problem is--the manuscript is 30 megs. We attempted a number of
> variations of saving the document utilizing the most current internal
> converters and patches to no avail; Word2000 runs out of memory
> mid-stream while attempting the format conversion. I tried a freeware
> batch converter which did not help very much.
>
> Due to change control and distribution issues, divide-and-conquer did
> not seem like a good idea. We are sending the same documents PDF
> format also but the requirement for Word95 still exists. My machine
> is a top-of-the-line desktop with 128 megs RAM but on Win98.
>
> Any thoughts? I suspect the batch converter solution is probably the
> right one--but can't seem to find too many choices out there.
>
> Direct responses are appreciated to save SAS-L bandwidth. TIA and
> have a great day!
Not sure what your submission requirements are, but I'd strongly
encourage evaluating a different document format. I've been exploring
LaTeX and DocBook (not entirely orthogonal) myself, both have much to
commend them.
LaTeX is flexible, has graphical front-ends (Klyx, Xemacs), and runs on
many platforms. DocBook is less flexible, is _highly_ structured, and
appears to be taking the technical publishing market by storm.
Authoring tools include Corel WordPerfect 9 (Legacy MS Windows only),
one or more Adobe products, and Emacs/Xemacs. It's geared strongly at
computer manual and similar technical writing, you might look for a
similar SGML DTD which is more directly applicable to your needs.
Advantages of SGML and related markup texts:
- Documents are always accessible -- the underlying "format" is plain
text. While authoring tools with support for the format are
preferred, plain text editors (notepad, codewrite, vi, etc) can be
used in a pinch to modify or read the base data.
- A variety of manipulation tools (authoring, conversion, rendering)
are available.
- Output to alternate formats is supported. LaTeX can produce
Postscript, PDF, HTML, and plain ASCII. DocBook covers all but the
last through the related set of Jade tools.
There's a possible light in the tunnel in the emergence of XML-based
document formats (note that XML itself is a document-specification
language, *not* a document specification itself). However, what I've
seen of MSFT products employing HTML suggests that MSFT will break any
and all available standards. MSFT's Word2K HTML output barely renders
under Netscape and Mozilla, doesn't validate under the W3C's own 'tidy'
validation tool, and breaks tidy when one attempts to use it to render
valid HTML from the source document.
--
Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? There is no K5 cabal
http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ http://www.kuro5hin.org
[application/pgp-signature]
| 
