"Raul Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 3/26/06, Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I can give you a simple example, however, of a case where > > > [with caveats] word format is suitable: some drawings could > > > be saved in some word format if the version of word in question is > > > widely available, > > > > Why does it matter whether the version of word is widely available? > > I'm not sure why you're asking this. Have you read the > GFDL? If not, try searching for the string "widely available".
Ah, yes. I had missed that text and paint programs must be generic, while drawing programs need only be widely available. > If you were familiar with that part of the GFDL (it's the section > on transparent formats), could you elaborate on what you're > asking about? > > > > and if there is a command line program that > > > will convert those drawings to postscript. > > > > The ability to convert the drawing to postscript (which will probably > > be lossy) does not affect whether the original word format is > > "Transparent". > > That's an interesting assertion. But I'm not sure why I should > believe your assertion. Perhaps you could elaborate? The GFDL requires you to be able to edit the transparent copy "straightforwardly". Requiring a separate conversion step is not straightforward, even if it is lossless and bi-directional. If the editor does the conversion back and forth for you, then it is straightforward. > > > Another example where word format is ok to distribute > > > involves a simple word->xml->word translation facility > > > where both the word format and the xml format are > > > distributed. > > > > If you are distributing both, then the XML file is Transparent and the > > word file is opaque. My point was that the word file is never > > Transparent. I am not saying that the word file can not be > > distributed, but that it is never Transparent. > > That would depend on what kind of content is in the word file, > wouldn't it? I concede that if it is a drawing and that the specifications are publicly available (which is not true for most word documents), then it could be transparent. So I retract the statement that the word format is _never_ transparent. > > > As an aside, I seem to remember a number of programs which > > > can deal with word format to varying degrees (three that come > > > to mind are catdoc (GPL), mswordview (GPL/LGPL) and openoffice > > > (PDL/LGPL), but I'm sure there are others). > > > > Only the last one can edit the file. The other two are lossy > > converters. And openoffice is definitely not a "generic text editor". > > I was addressing a different aspect of the GFDL's transparent > format issue -- the part that says > > ...represented in a format whose specification is available to the > general public... > > While I've not cared enough about this issue to study the format, > there are some indications that a specification of the format > for some word documents either is available to the public, or could > be made available to the public. > > Worst case, you could read the open office source code to figure > out how [some of] these documents are stored. These examples give partial specifications, not full specifications. I see no reason to read the GFDL as requiring only partial specifications. Cheers, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
