🚀 go-pugleaf

Regarding Peter Parisi's remarks about DCA, I have found that using DCA as
an intermediary works well for moderate to simple documents.  One does have
to do a bit of cleaning up afterwards (e.g. WP's "soft returns" become spaces),
but, all in all, not too bad.  I have found, however, that the more of NB's
unique features I use the more horrendous the WP product becomes.  For
example, try converting a bibliography that you generated from Ibid some
time if your life is especially boring.  Even after converting all the
Ibid USxx deltas to more usual NB style deltas the conversion process is
still an exercise in great frustration.  The conversion problem is that
the precise reasons that most of us have chosen NB over WP (and all the
others) are the same things that are most difficult to convert.

If you will all forgive me a moment of theological discussion, word
processors are a lot like religions (I've gotten along much better with
my computer ever since I learned that it is a Fundamentalist!).  There
are degrees of similarity among individual examples of the genre, but there
is that element of incommensurability that makes dialogue difficult and
conversion a problem for adherents of either faith.  The more one delves
into the depths of one's own unique religion/word processor, the more one
enters into the incommensurable.

Bob Kelly
rkelly3@mach1.wlu.ca