Jonathon Blake wrote:
Why not? Proprietary standards are often better, or at least come with better support. The best open standards often start out as proprietary. Microsoft chose to make its Word Processing XML open in the sense that it is fully and publicly documented. Microsoft Word 2003 is inexpensive compared to some competing solutions, and it works well enough for Bible typesetting. Besides, it gave a working solution while I waited for OpenOffice.org Writer to gain OpenDocument text format support, and while I'm still waiting for SIL Graphite support to be added to OOo.Kahuna pule Michael wrote: I care more about the objectives and result than if the means are "open" or "proprietary" or not. Indeed, you could probably pick three people on this mailing list and get 4 different definitions of each of those terms from them. :-) I am not a religious follower of open source and ISO standards. Actually, I care little about ISO endorsement of any standard unless the standard is both relevant to the task at hand and a better solution than reasonable alternatives. This isn't a game for me... it is what I do: translate, proclaim, publish, and live the Word of God, and help others who do those things.Especially when there is a European File Format standard that could have been used, that is open, and used. [A standard that is expected to become an ISO standard?] Michael |
_______________________________________________ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
