> > What's wrong with plain text?
>
> No font control, no formatting, no universal end-of-line marker standard,
no
> automatic page numbers, no automatic headers and footers, no spell
checking, no
> spreadsheets, no editable diagrams.
Ok, HTML then ;) I bet OpenOffice can edit HTML in a WYSIWYG, which word can
also do. Not only that, but it means the docs can be dropped on the server
for easy display.
Or maybe us a Wiki... I can set up one there for light duty...
> Every time we publish a new version of the spec I do not want to have to
copy a
> .txt version of it into a formatting tool. It seems much cleaner to me to
just
> put it under format control from day one with diagrams etc. constantly in
> place.
>
> Aside from this, the main reason I proposed openoffice was that it uses
XML
> file formats that work well in a CVS (CVS does not like binary file
formats).
you have to mark a file as binary instead of text when you check it into CVS
(do it all the time with no problems)... as for text, CVS automatically
converts the EOL char for you, to the platform its being checked out to (if
its checked in as text).
- Brill
|
