[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: OT: Is .RTF an Open Standard?



Dave Sherohman wrote:

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 formats?


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 though RTF was actually an IBM invention, and was a response to Adobe's PostScript.

I could well be wrong though. I seem to recall that RTF existed in IBM in 1992 anyway.




--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org



Reply to: