Papyrus Autor
Willkommen im Forum

Startseite » Papyrus English » General Things » pap or doc?
pap or doc? [Beitrag #10715] So, 08 Juli 2012 15:43 Zum nächsten Beitrag gehen
simpleman ist gerade offline  simpleman
Beiträge: 32
Registriert: Oktober 2010
Member
For years I have been saving all my Papyrus documents in the .pap format. Now I am considering to start saving them in the .doc format, for the sake of compatibility. Still I hesitate, because I somehow suspect there may be some advantage of using the native .pap format. So, my question is, will I loose anything if I switch to .doc, for example in speed, stability, functionality? Does Papyrus work best in its native .pap format, or can I just as well use the .doc format? What, actually, is the difference (apart from compatibility)?
Thanks!
simpleman
Sweden

[Aktualisiert am: So, 08 Juli 2012 15:44]

Den Beitrag einem Moderator melden

Re: pap or doc? [Beitrag #10724 ist eine Antwort auf Beitrag #10715] Mo, 09 Juli 2012 12:38 Zum vorherigen Beitrag gehenZum nächsten Beitrag gehen
tungsten ist gerade offline  tungsten
Beiträge: 40
Registriert: August 2008
Ort: Dortmund
Member
Hello, simpleman.
The best thing to do is – as usual – try yourself:
Export some of your (preferably more complex) documents to *.doc and view them in other apps like MS or Libre Office as well as in Papyrus itself.
As a rule line- and letterspacing may be interpreted in different fashions, Rich Text Format (which is the actual format Papyrus creates when it writes into *.doc) does not allow for manipulation of letterwidth. Graphic elements like textboxes or lines and even tables may change their looks and relative positions to a great extent or get lost anyway in the *.rtf.
Wether you lose advantages of *.pap depends on how much you have (over-) used specific features of Papyrus up to now. Using a lot of Papyrus' dtp-features will most likely result in a mess when you save a *.doc, mess that will even show when you reload it into Papyrus.
One big question ist the version of *.doc your version of Papyrus produces. As even new versions of MS-Word are only partially compatible to their predecessors.
You won't lose much speed in saving documents (but you may lose work speed in cleaning up the mess).
Papyrus won't become unstable by writing *.doc and I have not yet witnessed an instant where it could not read a *.doc that had been created by Papyrus or crashed while trying.
You will lose functionality if you are used to using thinks like letterwidth manipulation, graphic elements or tables without visible cellborders.
Thus, all in all, YES, Papyrus works best in its native *.pap (otherwise and especially with MS-Word going XML ROM would have switched over to a format that would be nearer to *.docx)


Pap.Autor (5.15), Pap.Office 2008 (13.07; lebenswichtig f. ältere Dokk. mit Stil- & Absatzvorll.)
Re: pap or doc? [Beitrag #10727 ist eine Antwort auf Beitrag #10724] Mo, 09 Juli 2012 21:55 Zum vorherigen Beitrag gehenZum nächsten Beitrag gehen
simpleman ist gerade offline  simpleman
Beiträge: 32
Registriert: Oktober 2010
Member
Thanks for the information! I'll test it all out. I am working mostly in Papyrus, so maybe I should stay with the .pap format.
By the way, do you mean that Papyrus saves in .rtf, even if you choose .doc? Are they exactly the same in Papyrus? Well, it is not so important for me to know, because as far as I have seen Papyrus is very compatible with, for example, Word, whichever I choose.
simpleman
Re: pap or doc? [Beitrag #10728 ist eine Antwort auf Beitrag #10727] Di, 10 Juli 2012 00:30 Zum vorherigen Beitrag gehenZum nächsten Beitrag gehen
glucose ist gerade offline  glucose
Beiträge: 795
Registriert: Januar 2008
Ort: Berlin
Senior Member
simpleman schrieb am Mo, 09 Juli 2012 21:55

By the way, do you mean that Papyrus saves in .rtf, even if you choose .doc? Are they exactly the same in Papyrus?

Yes they are. Add a .txt extension to a .doc created by Papyrus and open the file in a text editor and you'll see it starts with {\rtf1…}

Zitat:

Well, it is not so important for me to know, because as far as I have seen Papyrus is very compatible with, for example, Word, whichever I choose.

That's really a matter of document complexity and personal requirements. The .docs that I export from Papyrus usually need a lot of post processing in Word.
Re: pap or doc? [Beitrag #10731 ist eine Antwort auf Beitrag #10728] Mi, 11 Juli 2012 12:01 Zum vorherigen Beitrag gehenZum nächsten Beitrag gehen
tungsten ist gerade offline  tungsten
Beiträge: 40
Registriert: August 2008
Ort: Dortmund
Member
And I forgot:
Tables in Papyrus are based on graphic "text objects". That's different from most other document formats. While Papyrus somehow manages to transport simple tables into RTF, exporting and reimporting will not only lose or mess up border attributes, but cellspanning is as a rule lost between the formats, which often makes tables unreadable. And if you use text and paragraph styles the text styles will usually get lost and the attributes turned into immediate.


Pap.Autor (5.15), Pap.Office 2008 (13.07; lebenswichtig f. ältere Dokk. mit Stil- & Absatzvorll.)
Re: pap or doc? [Beitrag #10766 ist eine Antwort auf Beitrag #10715] Mo, 16 Juli 2012 10:31 Zum vorherigen Beitrag gehen
simpleman ist gerade offline  simpleman
Beiträge: 32
Registriert: Oktober 2010
Member
Having done some experimenting I find that Papyrus, apart from exporting, seems to handle everthing as excellently in doc-format as in pap-format. There is one thing to remember though, if you password protect in .doc mode, it seems that the password protection is lost when you open that document in another word processor. That decides it for me, so I stay with the .pap format. And I am fully satisfied with that.
simpleman
Sweden

Papyurus 5.12 Windows 7
Vorheriges Thema: English Version of Autor?
Nächstes Thema: Papyrus 12.5 and Windows 7
Gehe zum Forum:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Mi Jun 19 17:05:24 CEST 2013

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0.01389 Sekunden