Re: OT: Is .RTF an Open Standard?
Dave Sherohman wrote:
I though RTF was actually an IBM invention, and was a response to
On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 10:23:34AM -0600, Kent West wrote:
I'm trying to educate some users on the dangers of proprietary file
formats. But to make sure I've got my facts right, I need to ask: Is the
Rich Text Format (.rtf) an open standard? (In other words, can I say
something like "Use an open standard format, like .RTF"? Or do I need to
say "Use a less proprietary format like .RTF"? I would prefer to say the
first one.) I understand it was developed by Microsoft, but is it owned
by Microsoft? Do I understand that there are actually two different .RTF
My understanding is that there is an official RTF spec which is owned
by Microsoft, but available to everyone, and a "real" RTF spec which
essentially boils down to "however the current version of Word feels
like doing things". I would definitely consider RTF to be "less
proprietary" rather than "open".
OTOH, RTF is substantially better than doc simply be virtue of not
being able to host viruses/worms/trojans.
I could well be wrong though. I seem to recall that RTF existed in IBM
in 1992 anyway.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org