[conspire] (forw) unexpected computer changes from .docx and ...

[Akkana Peck]

Rick Moen writes:
> My not-so-secret shame:  I maintain an almost-ASCII file of 
> the status of all the streaming programmes I follow -- in _RTF_.  Why?
> Because despite MSFT messing with the format occasionally, it's a
> least-hassle way, using many tools, to incorporate styling features like
> bolding.

I've taken to using markdown for mostly-text files where I want formatting like bold and italic and basic structure like lists and headings. I wrote my last book in markdown, converting to docx (which the publisher required, sigh) only as the final step before submitting each chapter. Markdown is also the preferred format for github READMEs. Emacs can show it pretty much wysiwyg, with bold and italic, lists and section headings and such rendered in different fonts and colors.

Sometimes I use emacs org-mode instead, because it lets me expand and contract sections and subsections. (It can also do a lot more including walk the dog and wash the dishes, but I haven't gotten that far with it.) And also because emacs's markdown-mode has a few minor bugs while org-mode has a lot more eyes on it.

I prefer these to RTF for a couple of reasons. First, I like that they're both designed so the source is readable as plaintext. Second, RTF doesn't have semantic structure (like section headers and subheaders), just styling, at least according to https://github.com/github/markup/issues/283 .
Semantic structure makes it easier for me to navigate the document, and if I need to share the file it converts to better HTML (or, *cough*, docx), with that structure preserved.

        ...Akkana