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
You are not wrong but it does provide a basis to push them. There is alos the issue of some ISO certifice companies that will only use standards and this could make them need to shift to a different file format.
--
Robin Laing
