On Fri, 24 Dec 2004, Robin Laing wrote: > Jeff Vian wrote: > > On Wed, 2004-12-22 at 08:56 -0700, Robin Laing wrote: > > > >>Ryan D'Baisse wrote: > >> > >>>Okay, I am beginning to see just how many apps out there are > >>>classified as word processors. So, allow me to get a bit more > >>>specific... > >>> > >>>1. The editor must be WYSIWYG; > >>> > >>>2. It must be able to import to, and export from, Microsoft Word > >>>format without any difficulties; and, > >> > >>I will state that this won't ever happen unless all users are using > >>the same version with the same installation configuration. I hear the > >>screams as people that are working on collaborations get work back > >>that doesn't look like the copy previously worked on. More hours lost > >>re-formatting. > >> > > > > > > I think the *unreasonable* goal here is that it must interface with the > > proprietary format word documents, "without difficulty" and we all know > > that M$ changes the format regularly to prevent that. > > > > Thus an unreachable goal and a better plan would be to go to a > > standardized format that is not dependent upon the whims of M$. One that > > many editors can use easily and without the stress of trying to reverse > > engineer a format that is deliberately closed. > > > > > The problem is Word has problems meeting this goal with other Word > documents. I hear this all the time. > > It is interesting that Sun has submitted the OpenOffice format to ISO > for standardization. If it is approved, it may force Microsoft to > support the "Standard". Wouldn't that be a coup. :) What makes you think M$ would suddenly care about standards? They have never cared in the past. Unless it is to their advantage I doubt they will care. Tom Diehl tdiehl@xxxxxxxxxxxx Spamtrap address mtd123@xxxxxxxxxxxx
