From LPMeissner@msn.com Mon Jun 5 22:46:49 2000 Received: from smtp.email.msn.com (cpimssmtpu01.email.msn.com [207.46.181.26]) by dkuug.dk (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id WAA10470 for ; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 22:46:48 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from LPMeissner@msn.com) Received: from default - 63.23.23.148 by email.msn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 13:46:03 -0700 From: "Loren P Meissner" To: "Phillip Helbig" , Subject: RE: (SC22WG5.1826) RE: Nara - use of WORD, WG5 N1384 Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 13:45:29 -0700 Message-ID: <000001bfcf2e$fca54cc0$9417173f@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <200006051946.VAA10344@dkuug.dk> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 PDF is a commercial product produced by a specific company, namely Adobe. Using PDF "forces" people to use the product of a specific company. But?? Adobe is politically correct and Microsoft is not?? = OK - WORD is ugly and awkward and is not readily available to those running other systems, and yes, it's probably the wrong tool for the job. If that is why WORD should not be used, say so, and forget the "non-standard" (and "virus prone") arguments. = I'm not sure about the origins of RTF and HTML. I guess the "HTML Standard" would be OK if there weren't so many HTML standards. Maybe RTF and plain text are the only common ground, whether or not they are "standard." As time goes on, I think you are going to want to be able to include features that can't be expressed in plain text and maybe not in RTF either. So you need to anticipate some kind of graphics interchange as well. = (I still say the virus argument is a red herring, if you really think about it and don't just dredge it up as an excuse for bashing WORD. But I don't want to sidetrack into that thread.) I don't own any Microsoft stock, and I have plenty of problems with the idiosyncracies of their software. But I don't think it's necessary to invent imaginary arguments against it. Fishy arguments don't strengthen the case against it, they just weaken it. = Loren -----Original Message----- From: Phillip Helbig [mailto:helbig@man.ac.uk] Sent: Monday, June 05, 2000 1:32 PM To: SC22WG5@dkuug.dk Subject: (SC22WG5.1826) RE: Nara - use of WORD, WG5 N1384 > Is PDF a standard? Is RTF a standard? If not, how are they any better than > WORD, since the virus argument is a red herring anyway. I think the point is that WORD is the product of a specific company, Microsoft. This has disadvantages. One, using WORD "forces" people to use the product of a specific company. I see no need for this; quite the opposite. Two, it is not the right tool for the job. It's like saying one should program in C(++) since it is an "industry standard". Three, it makes transmitted files---which in most cases will be just plain text---much larger than necessary. Four, it is difficult to search it for text strings: I save important emails and can search in an entire folder or file (group of folders in this context) or in multiple files in multiple directories for text strings---not possible with word. Five, it IS a gateway for viruses etc.