From doelz Tue Nov 15 11:27:04 1994 Article: 121 of bionet.software.www From: doelz (Reinhard Doelz) Subject: Re: [Q] Word-processor to HTML converter? Date: Sun, 13 Nov 94 09:55:13 MET Lachlan Cranswick (lachlan@dmp.csiro.au) wrote: : I would also appreciate a discussion on : how other people are converting existing scientific : information and onto the WWW. : It is hard to see our scientists spending : much time on this unless existing Word-Proccessor : documents (with all the appropriate formatting : already present) could easily be converted into HTML. I agree entirely. The documentation which is written in biological sciences will require to ba available on three media, however: (1) professionally printed (2) Word Processors for the desktop (3) on-line However, there is a major catch with the 'conversion', and this is that you require a dedicated editor in order to be composed. E.g. a Wordprocessor on a PC will use a proprietary format, and a HTML editing is reasonably done in a specific environment which might not be portable. And, what happens if gobbledygook becomes the new format in three years? We will need to invent just another compiler or converter. We have, therefore, developed a simple meta-language which allows to write generic format. The background paper on this is submitted. [...] The idea is that most scientific documentation can be easily written in a simple format, and brushed up by a 'compiler' which makes best use of the format to be compiled into. Our JAM converter translates, currently, our JAM files in either LaTEX (for professional printing), RTF (for the PC/Mac environment), and HTML for W3. Ite converter comes with or without GUI and runs on most platforms available today - look at ftp://bioftp.unibas.ch/archive_data/survival/jam/documentation/JAMCTS.HTML Regards Reinhard Doelz -- R.Doelz REINHARD.DOELZ@sandoz.com
__________________________________________________________________
Edited 4 December 1996 MS,