What view for these nasty word *.doc files

What view for these nasty word *.doc files

[Harry Putnam]

What technique do people use to open these nasty word *.doc files?
I mean besides threatening to shoot the sender...

mswordview almost always tells me its a word 7 file and that it can't
touch it.  There is an html file produced when I try that but its empty.

Re: What view for these nasty word *.doc files

[Bjørn Mork]

Harry Putnam <reader@newsguy.com> writes:

> What technique do people use to open these nasty word *.doc files?
> I mean besides threatening to shoot the sender...

 bmork@rasputin:~$ grep word .mailcap
 application/msword;catdoc %s;copiousoutput

Works OK most of the time, and makes it really easy to answer a
MS Word mail as plain text with proper quoting.


Bjørn
-- 
You foul intellectual fascist!  

Re: What view for these nasty word *.doc files

[Henrik Enberg]

Harry Putnam <reader@newsguy.com> writes:

> What technique do people use to open these nasty word *.doc files?
> I mean besides threatening to shoot the sender...

>From St IGNUcius himself on this very topic:

<http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=02/01/10/1711238&mode=thread>

> mswordview almost always tells me its a word 7 file and that it can't
> touch it.  There is an html file produced when I try that but its empty.

I don't get that many, but I find that antiword does a halfway decent
job on most stuff.  There is always strings if that doesn't do it...

Henrik
-- 
One of the common denominators I have found is that expectations rise
above that which is expected.
		-- George W. Bush

Re: What view for these nasty word *.doc files

[Henrik Enberg]

Henrik Enberg <henrik@enberg.org> writes:

>>From St IGNUcius himself on this very topic:

Why was there a > at the beginning of this line?  It wasn't quoted.

Henrik
-- 
It's very important for folks to understand that when there's more
trade, there's more commerce.
		-- George W. Bush

Re: What view for these nasty word *.doc files

[Jorge Godoy]

Henrik Enberg <henrik@enberg.org> writes:

> Henrik Enberg <henrik@enberg.org> writes:
>
>>>>From St IGNUcius himself on this very topic:
>
> Why was there a > at the beginning of this line?  It wasn't quoted.

To distinguish it from the envelope From.


See you,
-- 
Godoy. <godoy@conectiva.com>

Escritório de Projetos		-- 	  Conectiva S.A.
Projects Office			--	  Conectiva Inc.

Re: What view for these nasty word *.doc files

[Harry Putnam]

Henrik Enberg <henrik@enberg.org> writes:

> Harry Putnam <reader@newsguy.com> writes:
>
>> What technique do people use to open these nasty word *.doc files?
>> I mean besides threatening to shoot the sender...
>
>>>From St IGNUcius himself on this very topic:
>
> <http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=02/01/10/1711238&mode=thread>

Doesn't `Threatening to shoot the sender' cover that.... he he.

Re: What view for these nasty word *.doc files

[Harry Putnam]

Bjørn Mork <bmork@dod.no> writes:

> msword;catdoc %s;copiousoutput
>
> Works OK most of the time, and makes it really easy to answer a
> MS Word mail as plain text with proper quoting.

Oh .. coolio.. That looks like the ticket.  I found it and built it
just now... Just let a word doc come thru now...

Re: What view for these nasty word *.doc files

[Joakim Hove]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 382 bytes --]


Harry Putnam <reader@newsguy.com> writes:

> What technique do people use to open these nasty word *.doc files?
> I mean besides threatening to shoot the sender...


On Linux I use the program antiword: 
<URL:http://www.winfield.demon.nl/> which aI reckon better than
catdoc.

And the following lisp (documentation unfortunately in norwegian -
please ask if you have questions.):


[-- Attachment #2: word-lisp.el --]
[-- Type: application/emacs-lisp, Size: 1670 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 559 bytes --]


This lisp defines two functions:

load-word-file - which is used to open a word file
load-doc-cmd   - which is used on the command line, i.e.

bash% emacs -f load-doc-cmd DocFile.doc

will open fire up emacs, and then load the wordfile "DocFile.doc".

Joakim Hove


-- 
==== Joakim Hove      www.phys.ntnu.no/~hove/   =======================
|| Institutt for fysikk  (735) 93637 / E3-166  |  Skøyensgate 10D    ||
|| N - 7491 Trondheim    hove@phys.ntnu.no     |  N - 7030 Trondheim ||
================================================= 73 93 31 68 =========

Re: What view for these nasty word *.doc files

[Bjørn Mork]

Joakim Hove <joakim.hove@phys.ntnu.no> writes:

> On Linux I use the program antiword: 
> <URL:http://www.winfield.demon.nl/> which aI reckon better than
> catdoc.

You are right. Looks like it does a better job extracting things like
chapter numbering, indexes and tables.


Bjørn
-- 
Weakling!  

Re: What view for these nasty word *.doc files

[Harry Putnam]

Joakim Hove <joakim.hove@phys.ntnu.no> writes:

>> What technique do people use to open these nasty word *.doc files?
>> I mean besides threatening to shoot the sender...
>
>
> On Linux I use the program antiword: 
> <URL:http://www.winfield.demon.nl/> which aI reckon better than
> catdoc.

With antiword installed and /etc/mailcap set like this:

application/msword; /usr/local/bin/antiword %s

I should be able to just hit <RET> on the part and see it right?
(Even without word-lisp.el installed ... right?)

I get this message instead of any view:
Viewing with /usr/local/bin/antiword %s
Displaying /usr/local/bin/antiword /tmp/emm.234146QP/containers.doc..

I can go to tmp and view them with antiword.. 

With word-lisp.el installed I still get a file in /tmp but no view in
my buffer.

Re: What view for these nasty word *.doc files

[Joakim Hove]

Harry Putnam <reader@newsguy.com> writes:

Thanks for your reply,

> I should be able to just hit <RET> on the part and see it right?
> (Even without word-lisp.el installed ... right?)

ehh - no. That would of course have been the best solution, and
probably quite simple to implement. Point is that the word-lisp
solution is written to view doc-files which I have in my own
filesystem, i.e. not attachements. 

> Displaying /usr/local/bin/antiword /tmp/emm.234146QP/containers.doc..

So what I do is to:

1. Save the doc-file to a doc file in my own home directory with "o".
2. Open this doc-file with M-x load-word-file

But I absolutely agree that writing a small wrapper to combine to the
two when treating attatchements would be wise.

If you could try my prcedure listed above, and then give a new opinion
of word-lisp I would be very grateful.

Regards

Joakim Hove


-- 
==== Joakim Hove      www.phys.ntnu.no/~hove/   =======================
|| Institutt for fysikk  (735) 93637 / E3-166  |  Skøyensgate 10D    ||
|| N - 7491 Trondheim    hove@phys.ntnu.no     |  N - 7030 Trondheim ||
================================================= 73 93 31 68 =========

Re: What view for these nasty word *.doc files

[Harry Putnam]

Harry Putnam <reader@newsguy.com> writes:

> With antiword installed and /etc/mailcap set like this:
>
> application/msword; /usr/local/bin/antiword %s

Nevermind.... I forgot the  `cmd %s ;copiousoutput' part

Re: What view for these nasty word *.doc files

[Mark Trettin]

* On: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 02:11:30 -0800 Harry Putnam writes:
> Joakim Hove <joakim.hove@phys.ntnu.no> writes:

[...]

>> On Linux I use the program antiword: 
>> <URL:http://www.winfield.demon.nl/> which aI reckon better than
>> catdoc.

> With antiword installed and /etc/mailcap set like this:

> application/msword; /usr/local/bin/antiword %s

With:

| mark@beldin:~]> grep word .mailcap
| application/msword;antiword %s;copiousoutput
                                 
it works just fine for me (without word-lisp.el).

[...]

HTH

    Mark
-- 
Mark Trettin · Aachen · Germany · Where is Aachen? --> N: 50°46' E: 06°05'
BOFH excuse #13:

we're waiting for [the phone company] to fix that line

Re: What view for these nasty word *.doc files

[Kai Großjohann]

Harry Putnam <reader@newsguy.com> writes:

> With antiword installed and /etc/mailcap set like this:
>
> application/msword; /usr/local/bin/antiword %s
>
> I should be able to just hit <RET> on the part and see it right?

Maybe you need to tack on ";copiousoutput" to the end of that line.

kai
-- 
Simplification good!  Oversimplification bad!  (Larry Wall)

Re: What view for these nasty word *.doc files

[Harry Putnam]

Joakim Hove <joakim.hove@phys.ntnu.no> writes:

> Harry Putnam <reader@newsguy.com> writes:
>
>> What technique do people use to open these nasty word *.doc files?
>> I mean besides threatening to shoot the sender...
>
>
> On Linux I use the program antiword: 
> <URL:http://www.winfield.demon.nl/> which aI reckon better than
> catdoc.

Once I added the copiousoutput part to mailcap it works nice.  Thanks.

[...]

> This lisp defines two functions:
>
> load-word-file - which is used to open a word file
> load-doc-cmd   - which is used on the command line, i.e.
>
> bash% emacs -f load-doc-cmd DocFile.doc
> will open fire up emacs, and then load the wordfile "DocFile.doc".

The command line technique works here and produces a nice rendition.

Am I right in thinking that load-word-file is supposed to be able to
open a *.doc file from within emacs via C-x C-f?

If so, that part doesn't work for me.  Using the same emacs that
was started with:
emacs -l ~/site-lisp/word-lisp.el -f load-doc-cmd containers.doc &

To do C-x C-f containers.doc  opens containers.doc with a binary mess
visible in the buffer.

Re: What view for these nasty word *.doc files

[Harry Putnam]

Joakim Hove <joakim.hove@phys.ntnu.no> writes:

>
> 1. Save the doc-file to a doc file in my own home directory with "o".
> 2. Open this doc-file with M-x load-word-file

Both these techniques give a nice rendering... thanks.

Sorry about my previous post... I didn't quite get it that C-x C-f
wasn't expected to work with word-lisp.el

Re: What view for these nasty word *.doc files

[Johan Kullstam]

Henrik Enberg <henrik@enberg.org> writes:

> Henrik Enberg <henrik@enberg.org> writes:
> 
> >From St IGNUcius himself on this very topic:
> 
> Why was there a > at the beginning of this line?  It wasn't quoted.

it's a workaround of mailbox format braindamage.

i didn't get such a ">", but then i am using qmail, maildir and nnml.

-- 
J o h a n  K u l l s t a m
[kullstam@mediaone.net]

Re: What view for these nasty word *.doc files

[Steinar Bang]

>>>>> "Johan Kullstam" <kullstam@ne.mediaone.net>:

> i didn't get such a ">", but then i am using qmail, maildir and nnml.

I got one on exim, cyrus imapd, nnimap, which shouldn't need it, hm...

Re: What view for these nasty word *.doc files

[Steinar Bang]

>>>>> Bjørn Mork <bmork@dod.no>:

> Joakim Hove <joakim.hove@phys.ntnu.no> writes:
>> On Linux I use the program antiword: 
>> <URL:http://www.winfield.demon.nl/> which aI reckon better than
>> catdoc.

> You are right. Looks like it does a better job extracting things like
> chapter numbering, indexes and tables.

On debian, installation consisted of 
	apt-get install antiword

The version on debian testing (intel architecture), was only 0.31,
though.  The newest versio on the home page is 0.31.

Re: What view for these nasty word *.doc files

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Steinar Bang <sb@dod.no> writes:

> The version on debian testing (intel architecture), was only 0.31,
> though.  The newest versio on the home page is 0.31.

Yeah; they're so out of date, those Debian guys.  :-)

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

Re: What view for these nasty word *.doc files

[Steinar Bang]

>>>>> Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org>:

> Steinar Bang <sb@dod.no> writes:
>> The version on debian testing (intel architecture), was only 0.31,
>> though.  The newest versio on the home page is 0.31.

> Yeah; they're so out of date, those Debian guys.  :-)

I meant to say: the newest version on the home page is 0.32.

Sometimes, not even Gnus' queueing of outgoing messages can save me
from myself. :-)

w3m clashes with mime types (Was: Re: What view for these nasty word *.doc files)

[Ami Fischman]

So, in trying to make gnus aware of antiword (in my ~/.mailcap file), I came
across the following problem: if I receive a message created by outlook (for
example), that has a MIME part for the text version of the message, a MIME
part for the HTML version, and a MIME part for a word document attachment,
the article will be buttonized correctly (I get a [2. wordfilename.doc ...]
type thing), but I cannot click on this button.  Turns out that w3m (which I
use to format html emails, and I really like for that purpose) is "taking
over" somehow, and is complaining that the doc attachment isn't a URL.  Is
there some way to tell w3m to leave buttons gnus makes alone?

BTW, pretty damn sweet how convinient the antiword inclusion is.  Kudos!

-- 
  Ami Fischman
  usenet@fischman.org

Re: w3m clashes with mime types (Was: Re: What view for these nasty word *.doc files)

[Ami Fischman]

Well, in random surfing, I came across the variable
mm-discouraged-alternatives and simply discouraging html parts suffices for
me.

Now if only article cancellation worked on this list...;)
-- 
  Ami Fischman
  usenet@fischman.org

Re: w3m clashes with mime types

[Katsumi Yamaoka]

>>>>> In <81lmejyn21.fsf_-_@zion.bpnetworks.com>
>>>>>	Ami Fischman <usenet@fischman.org> wrote:

> So, in trying to make gnus aware of antiword (in my ~/.mailcap file), I came
> across the following problem: if I receive a message created by outlook (for
> example), that has a MIME part for the text version of the message, a MIME
> part for the HTML version, and a MIME part for a word document attachment,
> the article will be buttonized correctly (I get a [2. wordfilename.doc ...]
> type thing), but I cannot click on this button.

Probably, you can fix this temporally by evaluating the
following expression in the article buffer:

(setq mm-w3m-minor-mode nil)

When using emacs-w3m in the article buffer, the keymap for
emacs-w3m will be activated as a minor-mode-map, and it will
override the original keymap.  Should we make it customizable
whether to allow a minor-mode-map for emacs-w3m?  Or, does
anyone have much better ideas?
-- 
Katsumi Yamaoka <yamaoka@jpl.org>

Re: w3m clashes with mime types

[Daniel Pittman]

On Mon, 28 Jan 2002, Katsumi Yamaoka wrote:
>>>>>> In <81lmejyn21.fsf_-_@zion.bpnetworks.com>
>>>>>>	Ami Fischman <usenet@fischman.org> wrote:
> 
>> So, in trying to make gnus aware of antiword (in my ~/.mailcap file),
>> I came across the following problem: if I receive a message created
>> by outlook (for example), that has a MIME part for the text version
>> of the message, a MIME part for the HTML version, and a MIME part for
>> a word document attachment, the article will be buttonized correctly
>> (I get a [2. wordfilename.doc ...] type thing), but I cannot click on
>> this button.
> 
> Probably, you can fix this temporally by evaluating the
> following expression in the article buffer:
> 
> (setq mm-w3m-minor-mode nil)
> 
> When using emacs-w3m in the article buffer, the keymap for
> emacs-w3m will be activated as a minor-mode-map, and it will
> override the original keymap.  

Ack. That's bad.

> Should we make it customizable whether to allow a minor-mode-map for
> emacs-w3m? Or, does anyone have much better ideas?

I can't think of anything better than making it a user option, unless we
want to construct a custom keymap that inherits both the Article and w3m
keymaps.[1]

It should default to *OFF*, as well, so that the standard Gnus bindings
are active, not the w3m ones.

        Daniel

Footnotes: 
[1]  I have /no/ idea if this is even remotely possible. :)

-- 
Art is moral passion married to entertainment. Moral passion
without entertainment is propaganda, and entertainment without
moral passion is television.
        -- Rita Mae Brown

Re: w3m clashes with mime types

[Kai Großjohann]

Daniel Pittman <daniel@rimspace.net> writes:

> I can't think of anything better than making it a user option, unless we
> want to construct a custom keymap that inherits both the Article and w3m
> keymaps.[1]
> [...] 
> Footnotes: [1] I have /no/ idea if this is even remotely
> possible. :)

One of the modes could have a minor-mode variant.

kai
-- 
~/.signature is: umop 3p!sdn    (Frank Nobis)

Re: w3m clashes with mime types

[Katsumi Yamaoka]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp-2, Size: 825 bytes --]

>>>>> In <vafhep5wkso.fsf@INBOX.auto.gnus.tok.lucy.cs.uni-dortmund.de>
>>>>>	Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Gro^[.A^[N_johann) wrote:

> Daniel Pittman <daniel@rimspace.net> writes:

>> I can't think of anything better than making it a user option, unless we
>> want to construct a custom keymap that inherits both the Article and w3m
>> keymaps.[1]
>> [...]
>> Footnotes: [1] I have /no/ idea if this is even remotely
>> possible. :)

> One of the modes could have a minor-mode variant.

There is a hint in the file emacs-w3m/mime-w3m.el that using
`local-map' property to bind keys on the inlined text/html part
like:

  (w3m-region (point-min) (point-max))
  (apply 'put-text-property (point-min) (point-max)
	 (gnus-local-map-property mm-w3m-mode-map))

I will set to work.
-- 
Katsumi Yamaoka <yamaoka@jpl.org>

Re: w3m clashes with mime types

[Daniel Pittman]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, Katsumi Yamaoka wrote:
>>>>>> In <vafhep5wkso.fsf@INBOX.auto.gnus.tok.lucy.cs.uni-dortmund.de>
>>>>>>	Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) wrote:
> 
>> Daniel Pittman <daniel@rimspace.net> writes:
> 
>>> I can't think of anything better than making it a user option,
>>> unless we want to construct a custom keymap that inherits both the
>>> Article and w3m keymaps.[1] [...] Footnotes: [1] I have /no/ idea if
>>> this is even remotely possible. :)
> 
>> One of the modes could have a minor-mode variant.
> 
> There is a hint in the file emacs-w3m/mime-w3m.el that using
> `local-map' property to bind keys on the inlined text/html part
> like:
> 
>   (w3m-region (point-min) (point-max))
>   (apply 'put-text-property (point-min) (point-max)
> 	 (gnus-local-map-property mm-w3m-mode-map))
> 
> I will set to work.

I should note that, having actually tried to deal with the content of a
W3M rendered HTML mail[1], the rebinding of the cursor keys was a *real*
pain in the neck.

So.... it would be great to be able to disable those, and probably other
standard motion keys, as far as I am concerned.

Er, assuming you get time to do so, of course. :)

        Daniel

Footnotes: 
[1]  Which was *so* beautifully fast, it was wonderful.

-- 
It's my guess that those cutting-edge artists who attack tradition secretly
believe tradition will survive to enshrine them as the wild and crazy geniuses
who destroyed it.
        -- Brad Holland