On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, John F wrote:
> Dave Sherohman wrote:
>
> >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.
> >
> I though RTF was actually an IBM invention, and was a response to
> Adobe's PostScript.
>
> I could well be wrong though. I seem to recall that RTF existed in IBM
> in 1992 anyway.
>
i havent seen anyone mention XML. both star and open office now use it.
it is open by default.
dave
--
Dave Mallery, K5EN (r/h 7.2 krud; debian woody+ximian)
PO Box 520
Ramah, NM 87321
no gates .~.
no windows... /V\
/( )\
running GNU/Linux ^^-^^ (Linux TM Linus Torvalds)
free at last!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
