Re: Open standards
Hi Sagi, Kfir,
The arguments for using a standard are:
1. to ensure the longevity (i.e. 30 years) of the materials
2. to ensure interoperability - that is, to make the materials usable to
other programs in other environments
As to the pre-proposal itself - the time frame is not realistic, even for
a company with a lot of experience in the field. The cost will be
enormous. They should instead do a phase-in with new course material.
- yba
On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Sagi Bashari wrote:
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 13:46:08 +0200
From: Sagi Bashari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Kfir Lavi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: linux-il
Subject: Re: Open standards
Follow up - the OpenU recently published a pre-proposal for the project:
See http://telem.openu.ac.il/resources/files/proposal.pdf
Sagi
On 8/29/07, Kfir Lavi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
The Open University decided to open some of her books to the public.
My friend want to give some arguments why they should publish the books in
open standards.
Please post some arguments that can persuade the head of this project to
go Open.
Thanks,
Kfir
--
EE 77 7F 30 4A 64 2E C5 83 5F E7 49 A6 82 29 BA~. .~ Tk Open Systems
=}ooO--U--Ooo{=
- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - tel: +972.2.679.5364, http://www.tkos.co.il -
=
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Open standards
On Wednesday 03 October 2007, you wrote: > Follow up - the OpenU recently published a pre-proposal for the project: > > See http://telem.openu.ac.il/resources/files/proposal.pdf > Item 4.2(2) says, very emphatically, that the books must be published in an "open and free" (no definition of 'free' given) format, with all their features accessible from at least IE6 and FF2 on Windows, Linux and OSX using free software. Sounds great. But then 4.2(10), entitled 'DRM', requires DRM that will block printing more than a page at once and saving local copies. Surely they must be aware that this combination of requirements is kind of pointless? This looks like people with very different ideas came to a weird compromise. BTW, item 5 says the books 'are and will remain under OU copyright'. That's all there is on the subject of licensing, but given the stated goals of not allowing things like saving local copies, and since the site will require registration for access (item 4.1(8)), I imagine there will be a click through usage agreement where users will also agree not to do these things. Why is the OU interested in imposing these kinds of limitations? I would really like to know. It's a university, it has already decided to publish these books online free as beer for all comers. What else is there but to let people use the books in the most efficient and convenient ways they can think of? -- Dan Armak = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Open standards
Follow up - the OpenU recently published a pre-proposal for the project: See http://telem.openu.ac.il/resources/files/proposal.pdf Sagi On 8/29/07, Kfir Lavi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > The Open University decided to open some of her books to the public. > My friend want to give some arguments why they should publish the books in > open standards. > Please post some arguments that can persuade the head of this project to > go Open. > > Thanks, > Kfir >
Re: Open standards
Nope, Its free to the public. No DRM is needed. On 8/30/07, Dan Armak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thursday 30 August 2007, Kfir Lavi wrote: > > > By opening do you mean publishing the books online? Free of charge? > > > Allowing > > > copying? Allowing modifications? > > > > Duno about modifications or free, but the books will be online for > > everyone to read. > > If it's not free of charge, in what sense is it "for everyone"? Everyone > can > buy the books at the OU bookstore in Raanana, too. > > If it's not free of charge and OU want to make money by selling ebooks, > they > might want to use some form of DRM. In which case you'll need to explain > to > them that DRM doesn't actually work and causes a lot of trouble and so on. > > > -- > Dan Armak > > = > To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with > the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command > echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
Re: Open standards
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote: > On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 08:29:13AM +0300, Jonathan Ben Avraham wrote: > >> To expand on it a bit, ODT or ISO/IEC 26300:2006, "OASIS Open Document >> Format for Office Applications" is the only international standard for >> office documents. It is unlikely that documents not complying with this >> standard will be readable in 20 years. >> >> For simple content it might be possible to use HTML. >> >> The chances of Microsoft Word2003 documents being readable five years from >> now is not good. > > I disagree. I think MS Word documents will be readable for a long time > because people want them to be. A better argument would be all of those > Hebrew word processing programs that were popular in the 1980's that > no one has a copy of. Just me or today you can't read your documents which have been saved in word 6 format? (and I some documents I wrote for high schools which I care about) Microsoft doesn't support that in current versions... p.s. FYI, OO.org does support that format. -- Lior Kaplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Open standards
Kfir Lavi wrote: > as long as just one crazy guy continues to maintain the groff program. > > > Well, groff is a very good example. 30 years, wow. The thing is that > groff is a small program, that can be maintained by one person. Word or > openoffice in the other hand need a lot of people, but a lot of > industries counting on word documents. > Format and App are different beasts. While OpenOffice needs lots of man power, the spec for ODF is relatively simple. Thus extracting data from it (and/or converting to other formats) is quite "cheap" (manpower wise). Cheers -- Meir Kriheli = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Open standards
On Thursday 30 August 2007, Kfir Lavi wrote: > > By opening do you mean publishing the books online? Free of charge? > > Allowing > > copying? Allowing modifications? > > Duno about modifications or free, but the books will be online for > everyone to read. If it's not free of charge, in what sense is it "for everyone"? Everyone can buy the books at the OU bookstore in Raanana, too. If it's not free of charge and OU want to make money by selling ebooks, they might want to use some form of DRM. In which case you'll need to explain to them that DRM doesn't actually work and causes a lot of trouble and so on. -- Dan Armak = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Open standards
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 01:22:31PM +0300, Nadav Har'El wrote: > Ok, then, forget Israeli products. What about Lotus Word Pro, then? This > used to be a popular format, and where I work (IBM) used to be *the most* > popular format, more than Microsoft Word, as recently as 10 years ago. Then, > over a period of a few years, people suddenly started switching to Microsoft > Word, to the point that nowadays Lotus Word Pro is no longer available in > IBM - anywhere (even though IBM owns Lotus!). Once in a while I hear people > who tell me they are stuck with some old "lwp" or "prz" files, and don't know > how to read them. That's even smaller than Irael. Lotus Word Pro (formerly AmiPro) was never a big deal. IBM used it because they owned Lotus, but no one else did. However along that line, what happened to AmiPro? Can you read the documents? What about Word Perfect. I happen to have WP4. and 5.1 for DOS, but most people don't. I also happen to have WordStar 3.3 for DOS. > So you agree it's not an Israel-specific thing, then. Yes and compared to India or China Israel is a very tiny island in a big sea. There are probably 100 times the computer users who don't use latin letters in either country than the total population of Israel. RTL is a small time thing, comparatively, but big in our less than friendly neighbors. Due to piracy issues many programs that were not copy protected required dongles for Hebrew support. For example, Word Perfect and Nisus. > Obviously. This was just an example - maybe I shouldn't have used an Israeli > example... Well, it's important on this list. :-) > No, that's not what I meant! I meant that when Qtext died, it died completely > - > nobody is able to read their old qtext files, and they're screwed. If MS-Word > dies, however, people are not screwed, because they still have OpenOffice, > Koffice, Antiword, and a lot of other programs who can read MS-Word documents. > Because of that, ironically, what makes MS-Word a relatively "safe" format > for long-term-document-preservation is not the strong backing of the Microsoft > company, but rather the small free-software projects that reverse-engineered > the format it and created unofficial readers for it. I think we agree on that. > But wait a minute - because OpenOffice is free software, you are not limited > to buying the latest version that is sold in the store. If you wish, you can > get OpenOffice version 1 now, and run that. If there was enough interest in > the public, you'd even have binary distributions including OpenOffice version > 1. With proprietary software, you can't do that: once Microsoft decided to > dump Word 8 and move to Word 9, there's no way you can get Word 8 any more. > In 10 years, Word 8 will no longer run on any modern computer, and nobody can > do anything about it. However, how many peole here have Fortran II, Cobol, PL/I, Algol 60, "B" compilers? There's just a good a chance that no one will have a GCC 3 compatible compile, X11 libraries, etc. My 1988 Macintosh SE will happily boot an original "system" disk and run the first version of MacWrite, but my friend's MacBook won't. She simply has no way short of an emulator (which may or may not exist or work properly) to read documents she wrote with her 1985 Mac 512Ke. What about all those computers that have long since disappered. How do you run software for them? I doubt the programs I wrote in the 1960's for HP basic systems, or IBM 1130 systems (in fortran and assembly language) could even be compiled today, let alone run. Or the COMPASS programs I wrote for the CDC 6400. > Similarly, it is conceivable (although probably not true) that if I take a > paper I wrote 14 years ago in troff (see the typeset results in > http://nadav.harel.org.il/papers/eigen.ps.gz) and try to run today's groff > on it, I'll run into a few problems. If I do, and if I can't get the new > version to work, then all I have to do is to get a 10 year old version of > groff, compile it, and use it. I won't be trivial, but it will be legal, > and very possible. It depends upon who you are. You might be able to do it. I've done similar things, and thank you very much, I'm probably not going to do them again. > If this is important enough to you, you can pay a programmer to do it for > you! Maybe, 30 years ago, Mainframe assembly language programmers were common. Now they are not. Finding someone who could even read the code may be impossible. > > Moreover, with Free Software, you don't need to write a program to convert > version 1 to version 30 - you can attempt the (usually) easier task of > compiling the old version 1 program on the current system. I'm glad you said attepmt. See above. > > I don't agree. It is possible that had OpenOffice not existed, then > KOffice, Abiword, or something else would have become the most popular > office application for Linux, and perhaps the extra attention would have > made them even better than they are today. I don'
Re: Open standards
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote about "Re: Open standards": > However, you are looking it it through Israeli eyes. Microsoft Word is > a worldwide product and there are millions of users. When Qtext or > Einstein where at their peak, computers where so heavily taxed that only > the rich, or companies could afford them. Ok, then, forget Israeli products. What about Lotus Word Pro, then? This used to be a popular format, and where I work (IBM) used to be *the most* popular format, more than Microsoft Word, as recently as 10 years ago. Then, over a period of a few years, people suddenly started switching to Microsoft Word, to the point that nowadays Lotus Word Pro is no longer available in IBM - anywhere (even though IBM owns Lotus!). Once in a while I hear people who tell me they are stuck with some old "lwp" or "prz" files, and don't know how to read them. > Speaking of open standards, in 1970 until the 1990's IBM was the world's > largest publishing house and ALL of their documents were written in > Script. How many of you have Script interpeters, could at any time code > in it, or have even heard of it? So you agree it's not an Israel-specific thing, then. > BTW, except for a handfull of ex-pat Israelis and a shaliach or two, > in 1991, no one had heard of Q-Text outside of Israel. Obviously. This was just an example - maybe I shouldn't have used an Israeli example... > > Ironically, the situation of MS-Word in this respect then Qtext is better > > because of free software! > > How is Q-Text free? There is a difference between abandonware and free. No, that's not what I meant! I meant that when Qtext died, it died completely - nobody is able to read their old qtext files, and they're screwed. If MS-Word dies, however, people are not screwed, because they still have OpenOffice, Koffice, Antiword, and a lot of other programs who can read MS-Word documents. Because of that, ironically, what makes MS-Word a relatively "safe" format for long-term-document-preservation is not the strong backing of the Microsoft company, but rather the small free-software projects that reverse-engineered the format it and created unofficial readers for it. > I also see FOSS programs evolving, for example, I have Open Office documents > that can not be read by Open Office. For example, Open Office has been > abandoned > on several older platforms and version 1 won't read properly ODT2 version > documents. Right now Open Office version 2 can read Open Office version 1 > documents but what about Open Office version 7, or 10? or if there is one > a year, 30? But wait a minute - because OpenOffice is free software, you are not limited to buying the latest version that is sold in the store. If you wish, you can get OpenOffice version 1 now, and run that. If there was enough interest in the public, you'd even have binary distributions including OpenOffice version 1. With proprietary software, you can't do that: once Microsoft decided to dump Word 8 and move to Word 9, there's no way you can get Word 8 any more. In 10 years, Word 8 will no longer run on any modern computer, and nobody can do anything about it. Similarly, it is conceivable (although probably not true) that if I take a paper I wrote 14 years ago in troff (see the typeset results in http://nadav.harel.org.il/papers/eigen.ps.gz) and try to run today's groff on it, I'll run into a few problems. If I do, and if I can't get the new version to work, then all I have to do is to get a 10 year old version of groff, compile it, and use it. I won't be trivial, but it will be legal, and very possible. > Sure someone could take the well published format for version 1 documents and > write a program to convert them to version 30, but what if you are the only > person with a document, and you can't program. If this is important enough to you, you can pay a programmer to do it for you! Moreover, with Free Software, you don't need to write a program to convert version 1 to version 30 - you can attempt the (usually) easier task of compiling the old version 1 program on the current system. > For example, Open Office only exists because SUN hoped to compete with > Microsoft Office and need to fill a hole in the software offerings for > their hardware. Eventually they realized usurping Windows and M/S > Office was not going to happen, so they open sourced their program. I don't agree. It is possible that had OpenOffice not existed, then KOffice, Abiword, or something else would have become the most popular office application for Linux, and perhaps the extra attention would have made them even better than they are today. Besides, Free Software release by a commercial company is still Free
Re: Open standards
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 12:06:53PM +0300, Nadav Har'El wrote: > Who can gurantee you that in 5 years (or 10, or 50) years, Microsoft Word > doesn't becomes as unpopular and rare as Qtext is today? 20 years ago, > Qtext was so popular noone could ever believe that it could go away. > But it did. And it did because only one company supported it, and only one > codebase existed that read it, and this codebase died with its company. However, you are looking it it through Israeli eyes. Microsoft Word is a worldwide product and there are millions of users. When Qtext or Einstein where at their peak, computers where so heavily taxed that only the rich, or companies could afford them. While it's unlikley that Microsoft will go away overnight, or even over 20 years, it's not impossible. For example look at DELAG or PAN AM, both the top airline of their times, both gone, and most people have never even heard of DELAG. Or AT&T? The brand remains the same, but the AT&T of 2007 is nothing like the AT&T that was expected in 2001 as portrayed by a movie of that title made in 1968. As for open standards, how many of them that existed in 1968 (there were lots of them) still are in use? While someone coined the term "FOSS" relatively recently, we called it "public domain software" and it existed in the 1950's and possibly before that. I was writing and using public domain software long before most of the people on this list were born. Speaking of open standards, in 1970 until the 1990's IBM was the world's largest publishing house and ALL of their documents were written in Script. How many of you have Script interpeters, could at any time code in it, or have even heard of it? The various ROFF's are a derivitave of Script, but not compatible. BTW, except for a handfull of ex-pat Israelis and a shaliach or two, in 1991, no one had heard of Q-Text outside of Israel. The only well known Hebrew word processor known outside of Israel was Nisus, which ran on a Macintosh and was developed in California. Of course the Original MacWrite could handle Hebrew, if you had a Hebrew system, but how many people had Macintosh computers before 1991 when the prices dropped? > > Ironically, the situation of MS-Word in this respect then Qtext is better > because of free software! How is Q-Text free? There is a difference between abandonware and free. It may very well be that one of the owners of Q-Text retained the copyright and if you try to sell it you will hear from his lawyer. > A lot of free software can read (and write) MS-Word > after years of reverse-engineering efforts. But still, only one company - > Microsoft - has any real interest that this format lives on. This could be a > problem in the future, even if you don't see it now. I see it as a small problem. What I see is a program that has been a commercial success for 15-20 years around the world, and business have a vested interest in keep their old documents readable. If Microsoft were to fall into a hole in the earth and disapear, there would be hundreds of little companies trying to produce a program that read their documents. I also see FOSS programs evolving, for example, I have Open Office documents that can not be read by Open Office. For example, Open Office has been abandoned on several older platforms and version 1 won't read properly ODT2 version documents. Right now Open Office version 2 can read Open Office version 1 documents but what about Open Office version 7, or 10? or if there is one a year, 30? Sure someone could take the well published format for version 1 documents and write a program to convert them to version 30, but what if you are the only person with a document, and you can't program. As a hobby, I specialize in collecting old programs for the Mac, but I don't have any Israeli ones. I also have a few old versions of PC software, but I don't have any of the Hebrew ones (e.g. Enistein, Q-Text, Dagesh, WordPerfect Hebrew) or dongles for them if I did. > "Open Standards" is a sexy, politically-correct slogan, as well as being a > very good idea. But still, I believe that "Free Software" is much more > important (even if less politically-correct and communist-sounding). I agree too, but there needs to be a trade off. Some things need the the money a commerical company generates to make them happen and keep them going. For example, Open Office only exists because SUN hoped to compete with Microsoft Office and need to fill a hole in the software offerings for their hardware. Eventually they realized usurping Windows and M/S Office was not going to happen, so they open sourced their program. Without SUN'S support, Open office would not have gone far anyway. They still contribute heavily to it. The first Open Office Hebrew support was funded by IBM beacuse they had t
Re: Open standards
> > as long as just one crazy guy continues to maintain the groff program. Well, groff is a very good example. 30 years, wow. The thing is that groff is a small program, that can be maintained by one person. Word or openoffice in the other hand need a lot of people, but a lot of industries counting on word documents.
Re: Open standards
Hi Dan, On 8/29/07, Dan Armak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wednesday 29 August 2007, Kfir Lavi wrote: > > Hi, > > The Open University decided to open some of her books to the public. > > My friend want to give some arguments why they should publish the books > in > > open standards. > > Please post some arguments that can persuade the head of this project to > go > > Open. > > Hello, > > By opening do you mean publishing the books online? Free of charge? > Allowing > copying? Allowing modifications? Duno about modifications or free, but the books will be online for everyone to read. Has anything already been published in some other format? Can you provide a > link? Not that I know of. Thanks, > -- > Dan Armak > > = > To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with > the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command > echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
Re: Open standards
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote about "Re: Open standards": > > The chances of Microsoft Word2003 documents being readable five years from > > now is not good. > > I disagree. I think MS Word documents will be readable for a long time > because people want them to be. A better argument would be all of those > Hebrew word processing programs that were popular in the 1980's that > no one has a copy of. Who can gurantee you that in 5 years (or 10, or 50) years, Microsoft Word doesn't becomes as unpopular and rare as Qtext is today? 20 years ago, Qtext was so popular noone could ever believe that it could go away. But it did. And it did because only one company supported it, and only one codebase existed that read it, and this codebase died with its company. Ironically, the situation of MS-Word in this respect then Qtext is better because of free software! A lot of free software can read (and write) MS-Word after years of reverse-engineering efforts. But still, only one company - Microsoft - has any real interest that this format lives on. This could be a problem in the future, even if you don't see it now. P.S. "Open Standards" is a sexy, politically-correct slogan, as well as being a very good idea. But still, I believe that "Free Software" is much more important (even if less politically-correct and communist-sounding). Take a look at troff, for example. It is, believe it or not, 34 years old - older than Qtext (and older than me...). People have rarely been using it for more than a decade (it was replaced by TeX, OpenOffice, XML, and other things). It was never an "Open Standard", or even a "standard" at all, just something that the late Joe Ossanna, and later Brian Kernighan, whipped up in Bell Labs. But the free implementation - groff - gave it immortality. Almost exactly 30 years after Ossanna's death, I can still view troff documents on my new computer, and will probably be able to do so also 30 years into the future - as long as just one crazy guy continues to maintain the groff program. -- Nadav Har'El| Thursday, Aug 30 2007, 16 Elul 5767 [EMAIL PROTECTED] |- Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |If con is the opposite of pro, is http://nadav.harel.org.il |congress the opposite of progress? = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Open standards
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 08:29:13AM +0300, Jonathan Ben Avraham wrote: > To expand on it a bit, ODT or ISO/IEC 26300:2006, "OASIS Open Document > Format for Office Applications" is the only international standard for > office documents. It is unlikely that documents not complying with this > standard will be readable in 20 years. > > For simple content it might be possible to use HTML. > > The chances of Microsoft Word2003 documents being readable five years from > now is not good. I disagree. I think MS Word documents will be readable for a long time because people want them to be. A better argument would be all of those Hebrew word processing programs that were popular in the 1980's that no one has a copy of. Even worse were the ones where everyone still has a backup somewhere, but they used dongles or other copy protection which are no longer functioning. I helped someone who was given the task of taking a 1980's vintage book, writen by one of the "gedolim" of the time and revising it. He had the documents on 5 1/4" floppies. I was able to read them floppies, and burn him a CD-ROM of them. However not only did either of us have the program that created it, we were unable to figure out what it was and read the text. The author of the documents had died almost 20 years ago and his widdow gave away the computer and all of the things that went with it, so there was no trace of what it was. His only choice besides wandering around asking people to open his documents to see if they could was to re-type the entire book. After all, how many people reading this have a computer with a 5 1/4" floppy drive and a parallel port (for dongles?) Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel [EMAIL PROTECTED] N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Open standards
Hi Kfir,
I think that Lior's argument is the best and the only one.
To expand on it a bit, ODT or ISO/IEC 26300:2006, "OASIS Open Document
Format for Office Applications" is the only international standard for
office documents. It is unlikely that documents not complying with this
standard will be readable in 20 years.
For simple content it might be possible to use HTML.
The chances of Microsoft Word2003 documents being readable five years from
now is not good.
Point your fiends to http://www.snia-dmf.org/100year/problem.shtml and
similar links to see just how serious the problem of electronic format
obsolescence is. Electronic format obsolescence makes Y2K look simple.
Regards,
- yba
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007, Lior Kaplan wrote:
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 23:49:32 +0300
From: Lior Kaplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Kfir Lavi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: linux-il
Subject: Re: Open standards
Kfir Lavi wrote:
Hi,
The Open University decided to open some of her books to the public.
My friend want to give some arguments why they should publish the books
in open standards.
Please post some arguments that can persuade the head of this project to
go Open.
Does he want the documents to be readable in 5 years? in 10 years?
Using open standards is the only way to make sure the content will stay
open in the future.
--
EE 77 7F 30 4A 64 2E C5 83 5F E7 49 A6 82 29 BA~. .~ Tk Open Systems
=}ooO--U--Ooo{=
- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - tel: +972.2.679.5364, http://www.tkos.co.il -
=
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Open standards
Kfir Lavi wrote: > Hi, > The Open University decided to open some of her books to the public. > My friend want to give some arguments why they should publish the books > in open standards. > Please post some arguments that can persuade the head of this project to > go Open. Does he want the documents to be readable in 5 years? in 10 years? Using open standards is the only way to make sure the content will stay open in the future. -- Lior Kaplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Open standards
On Wednesday 29 August 2007, Kfir Lavi wrote: > Hi, > The Open University decided to open some of her books to the public. > My friend want to give some arguments why they should publish the books in > open standards. > Please post some arguments that can persuade the head of this project to go > Open. Hello, By opening do you mean publishing the books online? Free of charge? Allowing copying? Allowing modifications? Has anything already been published in some other format? Can you provide a link? Thanks, -- Dan Armak = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Open standards
Hi, The Open University decided to open some of her books to the public. My friend want to give some arguments why they should publish the books in open standards. Please post some arguments that can persuade the head of this project to go Open. Thanks, Kfir
