Re: M$ Word -- Bad (was:Re: [Fsfe-uk] OFT visit)

[Ramanan Selvaratnam]

I dunno about you....
I accept it as a sad fact that M$ Word is found almost everywhere.
No one in their right mind can accept the '.doc'  format  to be  used 
for information interchange though.

Word processing is and will remain an important use of computer systems.
So any resource campaigning against the use of  '.doc' format should 
advocate/provide as an alternative something that is realistic.
This is where RTF fits in. All word processors can save in RTF. The fact 
that M$ is adding more tags to RTF is sad again but this actually helps 
the case for converting to OO.o's native format or something better, 
eventually.

Mark Preston wrote:

> I also did not know of RTF until a free software advocate told me about it.
> RTF (Rich Text Format) is Microsoft Word's text format. It is intended as an 
> interchange format to transfer documents between different programs. In some 
> ways it is similar to HTML. It uses syntax and keywords rather than binary 
> data to convey formatting information. It is therefore relatively human 
> readable and unlike .doc files which rely on binary data to convey 
> information. Equivalent RTF files are smaller and less likely to contain 
> hidden viruses when compared to .doc files, and more programs can read them 
> compared to .doc files. Be aware though that opening a 
> complex RTF file in older versions of Word or different word processors will 
> often lead to unexpected results. Each new version of Word introduces new 
> keywords to RTF, so older implementations will usually ignore controls they 
> do not understand or have not implemented.
> In summary HTML would have to be regarded as preferable to RTF as a way 
> forward to enable transfer of  information from .doc files around the 
> internet. However, sending RTF attachments would have to be regarded as 
> preferable to sending .doc attachments with emails etc.
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 07:21:54PM +0100, Ramanan Selvaratnam wrote:
>  
>
> > > If people cannot understand why they should use RTF instead of word we
> > > should really tell them that they  need some basic education without
> > > being shy about it.
> > > I did not know of RTF for a very long time until a free software
> > > advocate told me about it.
> > >      
> > On Friday 06 Jun 2003 10:13 pm, Chris Croughton wrote:
> > I thought RTF was a proprietary format.  Admittedly it's one which MS
> > make available, but it's also under their control to change the spec.
> > any time they want (and they do, there are some constructs they have
> > used which weren't in the spec. available at the time).
> >
> > Chris C
> >    
>
>