[Scribus] Ideas on collaboration [was: How do you guys share scribu files for collaboration?]
Tue Jun 21 11:56:03 CEST 2005
Dnia wtorek 21 czerwiec 2005 06:31, Craig Ringer napisa?:
> On Tue, 2005-06-21 at 04:33 +0200, Christoph Sch?fer wrote:
> > It has been mentioned before that multiple editing of DTP files is not
> > a good idea.
> I don't agree. With suitable style guides and a suitable team, it'd be
> an important thing to be able to do. I do agree that if done without
> discipline it can end up a mess, though.
> If nothing else, it'd be EXTREMELY useful to be able to have different
> people working on different parts (sections, liftouts, chapters,
> whatever) of a document. Whether this was done through a Word/OO.o style
> "master document" system or through true multiple editing isn't too
> > With respect to text content, it is always necessary to educate those
> > who create texts.
> I couldn't agree enough.
> > If you look carefully, you will find that in many
> > publications, created with Quark or InDesign, hyphenation marks appear
> > in the text where they shouldn't, because both programmes offer an
> > import filter for Word files. The average $office_suite user is used
> > to format his/her text while writing it (which is nonsense, but
> > nevertheless current practice).
> I don't know ... /text/ formatting (emphasis, etc) probably isn't
> nonsense. It's when they start doing "document-level" formatting and
> layout or they go overboard that it gets silly.
> > I think it is important to tell the
> > "Office professionals" how to switch off hyphenation and save to plain
> > text.
> Ideally, perhaps ... but often the layout dep't is already overworked
> and hand-formatting the editorial text is the last thing they need :S .
> > Plain text files are easy to handle for cvs-like programmes and
> > databases. An ideal (text) workflow would consist of text workers
> > writing their texts in a fashion they are used to and after approval
> > of all participants commiting their collaborative work to a database
> > in plain text.
> Personally, I'm inclined to favour the Adobe InDesign model, where the
> editors / writers use a special tool that understands the DTP program's
> text, and talks to a content management system. The tool can be
> customised to do things like auto-hyphenate or not, permit or not permit
> text formatting, etc as appropriate, depending on how you want to divide
> up the workload.
> This model lets you use a content management system or similar, with
> versioning and history, without the pain of going back to primitive
> plain text.
It would be horror to force people to use that. Even mild model when you
can force people to use special MS-Word document template to edit text
would be hard.
 MS-Word is very customizable, you could create template which would
replace regular formatting buttons and shortcuts for designed by
you buttons, shortcuts, even menus for formatting. I wonder if it
would be possible to modify OO.o for something like that (direct
save into .sla format?).
LaTeX + Vim = http://vim-latex.sourceforge.net/
Vim Universal Templates
CLEWN - http://clewn.sf.net
More information about the scribus