[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: text versions for using the NSDL Communication Portal

This archive contains answers to questions sent to Unidata support through mid-2025. Note that the archive is no longer being updated. We provide the archive for reference; many of the answers presented here remain technically correct, even if somewhat outdated. For the most up-to-date information on the use of NSF Unidata software and data services, please consult the Software Documentation first.

  • Subject: RE: text versions for using the NSDL Communication Portal
  • Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 09:42:46 -0500
I just tried using office XP to translate to html; but they're a little
slow loading.

http://thredds.comm.nsdlib.org/documentation/Getting%20Started%20with%20
the%20THREDDS%20Wiki.htm 

http://thredds.comm.nsdlib.org/documentation/How%20to%20Submit%20a%20doc
ument%20to%20the%20THREDDS%20Workspace.htm 

I agree html is more universal.  Since we're trying to promote the use
of the Wiki for collaboration which uses html, I should have made them
both in the Wiki to begin with.  Here's the first one as a Wiki page:
 
http://thredds.comm.nsdlib.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?GettingStartedwiththeTHRE
DDSWiki 

Of course, there is still something to be said for having an easy way to
upload existing documentation to the workspace.  Part of the
collaboration could then be someone else translating the item into
something we can all see.  

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: address@hidden
[mailto:address@hidden] On Behalf Of Tom Whittaker
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 9:24 AM
To: Ben Domenico
Cc: address@hidden; address@hidden
Subject: Re: text versions for using the NSDL Communication Portal

I sure agree about Word and PP -- that's why I try to use StarOffice for
such things.  Just for grins, I opened Chris' Word file in SO and then
just saved it as HTML -- the result is at:

http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/~tomw/wiki/wiki.html

The HTML is not too onerous.

But, actually, I was hoping to promote document preparation in HTML.
Just as you, I find converting between formats to often produces
"interesting" results, whereas simple HTML is nowadays pretty universal.
Now if I could only convince NSF/Fastlane (although I see that PDF is
not the only format available these days...HTML still is not).

[Although I note this is the same line of thinking that caused me to
speak out about "point data" at the meeting, so maybe I already made my
point... ;-]

tom

On Tue, 14 May 2002, Ben Domenico wrote:

> The only problem I have with HTML is with the particular flavor
generated
> by Microsoft Word and PowerPoint.  Actually the newer (Mac) version
seems
> to do a better job, but Word 2000 generates impenetrable HTML.  Those
are
> the cases where we prefer to create PDFs.  We're looking into whether
Word
> XP does a better job of creating web pages.
>

--
Tom Whittaker
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Space Science and Eng. Center
ph:  608.262.2759