From keld  Mon Mar  2 01:51:38 1998
Received: (from keld@localhost) by dkuug.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA08507; Mon, 2 Mar 1998 01:51:38 +0100
Message-Id: <199803020051.BAA08507@dkuug.dk>
From: keld@dkuug.dk (Keld J|rn Simonsen)
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 01:51:36 +0100
In-Reply-To: John C Klensin <klensin@mci.net>
       "(SC22docs.449) SC22 N2669 - SC22 Chairman Report on JTC 1 Ad Hocs" (Mar  1, 21:04)
X-Charset: ISO-8859-1
X-Char-Esc: 29
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Mnemonic-Intro: 29
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.2 4/12/91)
To: John C Klensin <klensin@mci.net>, "James W. Moore" <moorej@acm.org>
Subject: Re: (SC22docs.449) SC22 N2669 - SC22 Chairman Report on JTC 1 Ad Hocs
Cc: follett@access.digex.net, sc22docs@dkuug.dk,
        "william c. rinehuls" <rinehuls@access.digex.net>

John C Klensin writes:

> While JTC1 seems to have no interest in listening, the real 
> problem here continues to be the adoption of a highly 
> proprietary, undocumented, non-standard format that can change 
> without notice and substantially at the whim of the vendor.  
> 
> A different alternative would be to accept/require HTML, ideally 
> an HTML subset that was easy to handle and browser independent, 
> and to use it in conjunction with an ISO-specified Style sheet.  
> Even MS Word 97 can produce a plausible approximation to HTML, 
> so that might be a plausible course of action for those who are 
> convinced that Word is the *real* International Standard.  But I 
> haven't seen much sympathy for that position either.

Well, JTC 1 is putting more and more emphsis on HTML as the preferred 
document exchange format, even in preference of MS Word, so they are
lsistening to some extent.

Keld