From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Tomas Hlavaty Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs as a word processor (ways to convert Word/RTF proprietary files) Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2020 15:44:55 +0100 Message-ID: <87wnx6x7vc.fsf@logand.com> References: <0E591E8B-FD55-4829-8421-6F2C02AFD20C@mit.edu> <83eejenvy2.fsf@gnu.org> <87r1ne40e7.fsf@logand.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="35532"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Arthur Miller Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Dec 25 15:46:05 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1ksoM0-00098b-RF for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 25 Dec 2020 15:46:04 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57650 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ksoLz-0001Iq-QT for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 25 Dec 2020 09:46:03 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:54292) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ksoL0-0000nE-Es for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 25 Dec 2020 09:45:02 -0500 Original-Received: from logand.com ([37.48.87.44]:50568) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ksoKy-0002qS-BD for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 25 Dec 2020 09:45:02 -0500 Original-Received: by logand.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 772CA19F149; Fri, 25 Dec 2020 15:44:57 +0100 (CET) X-Mailer: emacs 26.3 (via feedmail 11-beta-1 I) In-Reply-To: Received-SPF: pass client-ip=37.48.87.44; envelope-from=tom@logand.com; helo=logand.com X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:261749 Archived-At: On Fri 25 Dec 2020 at 14:19, Arthur Miller wrote: > The problem with documents in MS office is not text extraction; it is > just xml nowadays anyway, the problem is countless VBA scripts that > business and organisations run in Excell/Access/Word that just can't > be translate to Libre. Libre has VB, but the underlaying objects are > not there and lots of tools out there that people use can't be just > automatically translated. > > I have worked in big organisation and did lots of automation for MS > office and databases. So what? I do not understand what are you trying to say. I tried to get the point across that it is not all or nothing problem. There are use-cases which bring lots of value and are achievable with reasonable effort. >> Dealing with office formats is not a pleasant experience so I am >> skeptical that volunteers will devote so much time to the use-cases >> with the highest complexity. > > What is not so pleasant? New formats (marked with x) at the end are > all xml, so it is just dealing with xml, sinilar to odt. I see nothing > hard there and it is not that I defend Microsoft, I just don't see > what you are talking about. That is part that alternatives you mention > do. Just because something is a zip file with some xml files inside does not make it "not hard", "just dealing with xml". It is complex to do non-trivial stuff. If you do not see what I am talking about, try to implement something non-trivial (for example merge many docx documents into one). You'll understand why it is not a pleasant experience and why I do not think anybody will do that in their free time. >> there could be. > > You are correct about one thing: there could be free alternative. > All that will probably change in next 20 ~ 30 years, but we are not > there yet. It is not clear to me about which use-case are you talking in this prediction. 1) There are use-cases, for which there are solutions now, as I already shown. 2) There are use-cases, for which solutions could be implemented with reasonable effort. 3) There are use-cases, which will very likely never have an alternative. For 1) I did my best. For 2) we'll see what I will do;-) For 3) I wish you good luck!