Re: Appleworks WP Docs
- From: see_signature@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Jon)
- Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 21:25:07 +0300
Steve W. Jackson <stevewjackson@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <1hxyqu4.1q5hvds1v5thyyN%see_signature@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
see_signature@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Jon) wrote:
Leave them as RTF, by all means. That way they will at least open even
in apps that do not use .doc, Nisus Writer being one example. Even
thoough _many_ apps can read .doc, it is better to use a format that is
at least somewhat "open". Hard to say that about an MS-owned format, but
it is better/less awkward than .doc, at least.
You are aware that MS "owns" the RTF spec, right? It was written by MS.
It gets stretched further with each new Word release, which is why there
are lots of compatibility issues between Word-built RTF files and others
over time.
I am indeed aware of that, which is why I added the "somewhat" and why I
quoted the "open". But it is still better than the 100% unabashedly
proprietary .doc. I am sure we agree that ODF, XML or other truly open
formats are better than RTF, but I just said this is better than
resaving an RTF file as a .doc to save it for the future. RFT at least
is a serial format where you can recover the text.
--
/Jon
For contact info, run the following in Terminal:
echo 36199371860304980107073482417748002696458P|dc
.
- References:
- Appleworks WP Docs
- From: BreadWithSpam
- Re: Appleworks WP Docs
- From: Mystras
- Re: Appleworks WP Docs
- From: Jon
- Re: Appleworks WP Docs
- From: Steve W. Jackson
- Appleworks WP Docs
- Prev by Date: Re: Appleworks WP Docs
- Next by Date: Re: Aperture trashed my photos
- Previous by thread: Re: Appleworks WP Docs
- Next by thread: Re: Appleworks WP Docs
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading