LISTSERV at the University of Georgia
Menubar Imagemap
Home Browse Manage Request Manuals Register
Previous messageNext messagePrevious in topicNext in topicPrevious by same authorNext by same authorPrevious page (October 2008, week 3)Back to main SAS-L pageJoin or leave SAS-L (or change settings)ReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional font
Date:         Sun, 19 Oct 2008 21:52:30 -0600
Reply-To:     Alan Churchill <savian001@GMAIL.COM>
Sender:       "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From:         Alan Churchill <savian001@GMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Re: The Future of RTF for Clinical Reporting
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Minor correction:

“Asian languages (many of them) have more than 256 words.”

A number of Asiatic languages use word based writing hence the need for more than 256 values. Unicode allows for approximately 65,000 values (2**16) which is critical for international support.

Alan

Alan Churchill Savian www.savian.net <http://www.savian.net/>

From: Alan Churchill [mailto:savian001@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2008 11:48 AM To: 'SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU' Subject: RE: The Future of RTF for Clinical Reporting

Ajay,

Asian languages (many of them) have more than 256 characters. That requires more than 2**8 power meaning that Unicode is required. Not humor, basic mathematics.

Alan

Alan Churchill Savian www.savian.net <http://www.savian.net/>

From: ajay ohri [mailto:ajayohri@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2008 5:14 AM To: SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU; Alan Churchill Subject: Re: The Future of RTF for Clinical Reporting

Regarding future of RTF, perhaps the gentleman would like to check for Google Docs (word equivalent) to seek a more cutting edge solution.

The need for jokes on "Asians want to be included now with a ";)" smiley baffles me.

Is this funny ? Leave prediction of the future of domain to the data modeling /economists .

Stick to lightsabre/silver light technologies.

--- On Sun, 10/19/08, Alan Churchill <savian001@GMAIL.COM> wrote:

From: Alan Churchill <savian001@GMAIL.COM> Subject: Re: The Future of RTF for Clinical Reporting To: SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU Date: Sunday, October 19, 2008, 3:04 PM

ASCII? The world is Unicode now. We are beyond 256 bytes of happiness plus

the Asians want to be included in what is happening ;-] Try ASCII on

Kanji...not a pretty sight.

Word macros are fraught with security risks so I wouldn't advocate those as

a means of inclusion. I pointed out how InfoPath can do this inclusion

dynamically. Heck, Word can as well. No need to run a script or macro: do it

on the fly when the document is opened. That way the results are current to

the data.

Alan

Alan Churchill

Savian

www.savian.net

-----Original Message-----

From: SAS(r) Discussion [mailto:SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of

RolandRB

Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2008 3:02 AM

To: SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU

Subject: Re: The Future of RTF for Clinical Reporting

On Oct 19, 8:20 am, savian...@GMAIL.COM (Alan Churchill) wrote:

> Lou,

>

> I was emailing a birdie today on this subject. I am a technician and not

an

> analyst so my take was simply on a programmatic way to address Pharma

needs.

> The birdie explained the problem:

>

> - Pharma folks need to include SAS output in a Word document

> - Currently, they find it easy to cut and paste RTF into Word or, manually

> enter the results.

This simple statement can be interpreted in different ways. By

including SAS output in a Word document then is this output already in

ascii form and do they need to do this for many output tables? If so

then with a script it is a relatively simple matter to gather the

ascii output together and place a marker each time the layout changes.

This marker can then be identified using a Word macro and the layout

of the page adjusted accordingly. That way a whole mix of ascii output

can easily be incorporated into a Word document with all the

pagination correct.

I was asked to modify a script I wrote to put out this layout

information in a marker that started with the letters ÜÜ and the other

guy had a Word macro that would detect these markers and change page

layout accordingly. I just uploaded the script. Look for the -o

option.

http://www.datasavantconsulting.com/roland/bigxlis

> Here was my take:

>

> - Use Microsoft InfoPath which lays out a document in a user-friendly way

> (http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/infopath/HA101656341033.aspx)

> - Have the SAS output to HTML, PDF, XML, whatever

> - Use tags for inclusion into the InfoPath document.

>

> I am not going into the ugly technical details but suffice it to say that

> creating Pharma documents that are standardized and require minimum

> intervention for results seems very doable to me. SAS 9.2 makes it even

> easier using web services but that will have to wait until 9.2's

release.

>

> To simplify it for the day-to-day, perhaps there needs to be an simple

Word

> add-in that copies a SAS dataset into a Word table? That is a trivial

> exercise.

>

> Alan

>

> Alan Churchill

> Savianwww.savian.net

>

>

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: SAS(r) Discussion [mailto:SA...@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of Lou

> Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2008 11:45 PM

> To: SA...@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU

> Subject: Re: The Future of RTF for Clinical Reporting

>

> "RolandRB" <rolandbe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>

> news:63e4d7e2-f798-457b-a3db-3692f9b554d2@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

> On Oct 18, 1:52 am, cye...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

> > Hi All

>

> > About a year ago I asked for your opinion/experience whether Clinical

> > Reporting

> > is moving forward to the RTF, PDF, XML, HTML formats etc.

>

> > see

>

>

linkhttp://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.soft-sys.sas/browse_thread/thre...

>

> > My experience is that more and more statisticians and medical writers

> > are aware of the RTF

> > format and begining to ask for it. What are your thoughts and

> > experience on this?

>

> > Regards

> > Chen

>

> You must not go down the RTF route for clinical reporting until there

> is a clear change of policy by the SAS Institute. The last position

> they took on this that I am aware of is stated in clear terms in this

> document.

>

> http://support.sas.com/techsup/technote/ts749.pdf

>

> In that document it makes it clear that RTF output is not supposed to

> be the final output and will need editing. This means that doing bulk

> reporting might never be practicable or advisable using RTF at any

> time in the future.

>

> PRINTER is for presentation-ready printable reports.

> RTF is designed to allow editing, not optimized for final output

>

> You need to give that PDF that is held on the SAS support site a

> careful read.

>

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!­

!

> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

> Back before ODS, SAS produced print image files that perhaps weren't

> intended to be editable but nonetheless could be - all you needed was a

text

> editor. Today, for better or worse, the counterpart is something that

> anyone can look at and/or print using Word or some similiar application.

>

> What's needed is something that lets programmers control the vertical

as

> well as the horizontal placement on the page, and is accessible to

> non-programmers, even near computer illiterates, using MS Office or

similar

> software. And this is important - many of those who produce clinical

> output and almost all of those who use it ARE NOT PROGRAMMERS, and

solutions

> that don't take that into account end up being sub-optimal.

>

> At the moment, because a bunch of people at a big company were out of

touch

> with their customers, we're stuck with half a solution in the form of

ODS

to

> RTF (in spite of aiming at MS RTF which has been out there for a couple of

> decades, they don't appear to even implement the full tagset), one

that

> seems to require almost as many work arounds and tricks to produce the end

> results as were needed before ODS was introduced.

>

> We're stuck with PROC REPORT (though it lacks the flexibility of the

data

> step) and RTF not because they're good solutions, but because the

> alternatives presently on offer are even worse.- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -

__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com


Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main SAS-L page