My personal recommendation:
- Compose text using a plain text format like Markdown, reStructuredText, or AsciiDoc. (I wouldn’t recommend using LaTeX for composing text unless you (a) have several years experience with it, or (b) are writing a math or physics paper)
- Use plain text tools for version control and collaboration (for example, git and github).
- If your layout needs are simple, just convert to HTML/ePub/LaTeX/whatever and go
- If your layout needs are more sophisticated and you want something to use snazzy typography, use a real typesetting tool like InDesign
Interestingly, while this thread was going on, one of the author of "Pro Git" published a blog explaining his entire workflow.
I take it everyone interested in this thread probably wants to read it:
"Living the Future of Technical Writing - The amazing adventures and final toolchain of Pro Git, 2nd Edition"https://medium.com/@chacon/living-the-future-of-technical-writing-2f368bd0a272
(link right above hopefully fixed thanks to SpamRay)The one big difference I see between today and more than ten years ago is that today you'll kinda often want to target both physical books, ebooks, PDFs, Web, etc. So this influences the workflow.
When I compare his workflow to the one I used back in the days, I'm jealous: I'd print the book in full, drop it either at my publisher or directly at the person doing the proof-reading. Then a few days later I'd get the hundreds of sheets of papers back, with corrections in red and I'd painfully enter them page by page in Quark XPress!
I 100% agree with people pointing out here that Word is useless for typesetting. A word processor can be okay as long as you're not the person doing the typesetting but then again if you target books + ebooks / PDFs + HTML you'll need to use something like Markdown or asciidoc and then create or reuse a "workflow" of transformation that suits you.
Guys, you're giving me the envy to start writing books again!