Open document formats

From: David Mertz <voting-project_at_gnosis_dot_cx>
Date: Mon Apr 19 2004 - 22:40:34 CDT

On Apr 19, 2004, at 11:14 PM, Ed Kennedy wrote:
> Would rich text format or portable document format be more
> appropriate?


I think PDF or HTML would be a bit more open than RTF.

For what was posted, I really can't see any reason not to make it plain
text, which makes it a whole lot easier to annotate and discuss on the
list. If this were a final pamphlet we planned to hand out, PDF would
have an appeal since we really would want certain fonts, margins,
columns, etc. But at this point it's just concepts to discuss...
concepts are best discussed with plain old words. Just like you and I
both did in our followup posts discussing the data model.

But the overriding principle is that members should NOT have to buy
proprietary software (especially from Microsoft) in order to work with
OVC content.

I confess I -did- manage to read it without such proprietary tools (I
might have lost some formatting, but after all, that's irrelevant in
this case)... but in general I try never to agree to receive Word
documents. I've often refused to do business with people who try
sending me such proprietary (and really, offensive) formats (well, I
give them at least one warning).

Yours, David...

mertz@ | The specter of free information is haunting the `Net! All the
gnosis | powers of IP- and crypto-tyranny have entered into an unholy
.cx | alliance...ideas have nothing to lose but their chains. Unite
       | against "intellectual property" and anti-privacy regimes!
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Fri Apr 30 23:17:13 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Apr 30 2004 - 23:17:29 CDT