On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 10:23:34AM -0600, Kent West wrote: > I'm trying to educate some users on the dangers of proprietary file > formats. But to make sure I've got my facts right, I need to ask: Is the > Rich Text Format (.rtf) an open standard? (In other words, can I say > something like "Use an open standard format, like .RTF"? Or do I need to > say "Use a less proprietary format like .RTF"? I would prefer to say the > first one.) I understand it was developed by Microsoft, but is it owned > by Microsoft? Do I understand that there are actually two different .RTF > formats?
My understanding is that there is an official RTF spec which is owned by Microsoft, but available to everyone, and a "real" RTF spec which essentially boils down to "however the current version of Word feels like doing things". I would definitely consider RTF to be "less proprietary" rather than "open". OTOH, RTF is substantially better than doc simply be virtue of not being able to host viruses/worms/trojans. > Is there a true open standard format, that is easily > created/used/editted on any platform, other than text? (Text (ASCII? - > and what's the difference between DOS ASCII and Windows ASCII, and Text > ASCII, etc?) would be ideal, except for the inability to do such things > as bold, font color, etc). How about HTML? Or, if you're willing to give up the idea of WYSIWYG and embrace WYAFIWYG (What You Ask For...), TeX/LaTeX rocks. Both HTML and TeX use plain-ASCII source files and there are GUI editors for both as well. (If you're going to give people GUI HTML editors, though, you should beat it into their heads that, even though it's GUI, it's _not_ WYSIWYG. The HTML may render very differently on my screen than it does on yours.) -- When we reduce our own liberties to stop terrorism, the terrorists have already won. - reverius Innocence is no protection when governments go bad. - Tom Swiss -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
