Re: Functionality loss when saving in other formats from .abw?

Linux antiX/Mepis user here. I've always followed the advice of the Abi
developers: Use .abw for saving documents, convert to .rtf (or to .doc
for people who flip out at anything other than .doc). Recently I've
been sending out .odt but have gotten complaints from users whose
software can't open it.

I've never experienced serious loss of formatting from conversion
to .rtf/.doc (but my documents are usually simple text). I'm curious
about what direction the Abi developers are inclining toward,
regarding the future of a default format. It seems like a good thing
if .odt became a universal alternative to .doc, now that we're no
longer in the position of having no alternative to .doc other
than .rtf. Before long I'm not sure there will be a reason to
maintain .abw as Abiword's default format. Perhaps the developers
themselves will start advising users to make .odt their default. ??

--Mark Richardson   

On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 00:11:46 +0000
James Freer <[email protected]> wrote:

> 
> [Linux xubuntu.12.04 user]
> 
> In the time i've been using Abiword i've always saved files in .abw -
> simply as that's the default setting.
> 
> More recently i've been thinking that it would be better to consider
> .doc or .odt as these can be read by the other word processor
> LO-writer - we don't have a lot of choice as a linux user.
> 
> So what do other folk use and why? Is there any functionality loss
> between these formats. In windows i used to use an rtf word processor
> like Jarte for letters and short files when i didn't need the
> complexity of Abiword or OO-writer (as it then was).
> 
> james
> -----------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to
> [email protected] with the word
> unsubscribe in the message body.
> 

-----------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to
[email protected] with the word
unsubscribe in the message body.