"Doug Ewell" <[email protected]> writes: > Douglas Otis <dotis at mail dash abuse dot org> wrote: > >> Reliance upon open source tools ensures the original RFCs and ID can >> be maintained by others, without confronting unresolvable >> compatibility issues. > > Whether a tool is open source or not has nothing to do with how many > people know how to use it. Are you talking about maintainability of > the documents or of the tools? > >> It would also be a bad practice to rely upon unstable proprietary >> formats having limited OS support and significant security issues. > > Oh, stop. Word 2007 can read and save Word 97 documents. > Applications for Windows, which has a 90% to 93% desktop market share, > can hardly be said to suffer from "limited OS support." And turning > off macros is becoming more and more common among Word users; it's > even a separate non-default document format under Word 2007. > > I know The Penguin doesn't like the fact that Word is closed-source, > but -- like the multiple discussions being lumped under "RFC archival > format" -- we need to separate that issue from questions of whether > the app is any good. And if we're talking about an author using Word > (or TextPad or roff or whatever) to pre-process a file into an RFC > Editor-friendly format, which can then be converted to traditional RFC > text or HTML or PDF or something, then isn't the horror of using Word > limited to that author?
Doug, Already, above, Douglas pointed out for your comments correctly. RFC format is different from a market share format by the purpose. Do you have been think about the word "compatibility" and "standard"? Here is IETF, not a market.. ;; Sincerely, -- Byung-Hee HWANG, KNU ∑ WWW: http://izb.knu.ac.kr/~bh/ _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
