Sujet : Re: (Sumatra PDF viewer) -- " I prefer Okular." -- viewer for .doc files?
De : candycanearter07 (at) *nospam* candycanearter07.nomail.afraid (candycanearter07)
Groupes : comp.editorsDate : 13. Jun 2024, 07:05:03
Autres entêtes
Organisation : the-candyden-of-code
Message-ID : <slrnv6l2r0.24pu.candycanearter07@candydeb.host.invalid>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
User-Agent : slrn/1.0.3 (Linux)
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <
ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 07:55 this Wednesday (GMT):
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 06:25:03 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:
>
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 05:55 this Tuesday (GMT):
>
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 02:40:04 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:
>
And they made it even more confusing by introducing .docx too.
>
That’s a whole new format, which Microsoft has tried to railroad
through as some kind of “international standard” (ISO 29500). Except
the specification document is so opaque and incomprehensible, nobody
can be sure when they’ve implemented it properly or not. So
“compatibility” falls back to meaning “compatible with Microsoft
Office”, not “conforming to an official spec”.
>
Stick to ODF, aka ISO 26300. It’s only a small fraction of the
complexity, and much easier to get right.
Why not just use .rtf or .md? Those are way more universal imo.
>
You mean Markdown? Sure, it’s nice and simple, but has no stylesheets.
Stylesheets?
-- user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom
Re: (Sumatra PDF viewer) -- " I prefer Okular." -- viewer for .doc files?
Re: (Sumatra PDF viewer) -- " I prefer Okular." -- viewer for .doc files?