Re: N2525 and N2526

From: Doug Ewell (
Date: Tue Nov 26 2002 - 11:28:59 EST

  • Next message: Dominikus Scherkl: "RE: N2525 and N2526"

    Anto'nio Martins-Tuva'lkin <antonio at tuvalkin dot web dot pt> wrote:

    > Hm. Is is OK to distributite documentation in such a proprieatry and
    > virus-prone format when a safe and platform-independent equivalent
    > (.rtf) is readily avaliable?...

    In fact, the majority of WG2 documents seem to be distributed as PDF
    files. I get the feeling Adobe is ambivalent about just how "open" they
    want PDF to be -- they've published the spec, but increasingly refer to
    it as "Adobe PDF" instead of just "PDF."

    Microsoft Word is certainly a proprietary format, but isn't
    "virus-prone" a bit of fear-mongering? Are there any Word users out
    there who *don't* have macro virus checking turned on?

    In theory RTF is more platform-independent than Word format, but in
    practice I really don't know how many non-Windows systems are able to
    read RTF. As a rich-text format implemented as "plain text plus tags,"
    it seems to have been almost totally replaced by HTML. (Indeed, HTML is
    probably the format I'd use to distribute such a document, if I didn't
    have access to Distiller.)

    -Doug Ewell
     Fullerton, California

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Nov 26 2002 - 12:13:14 EST