Subject: doc formats (again)

From: Michael Everson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 16:43:31 +0100

What follows below is yet another tiresome example of how inappropriate it
is to permit vendor-specific formats for distribution of standards
documentation. All the "upgrade" practice of the company question does is
attempt to force people to buy each new version of their product. And not
everyone patronizes that particular company.

Which leaves us, once again, safe with plain TEXT, HTML, and PDF formats
for document distribution.

The "most commonly used" word processing package in question is able to
save documents in plain TEXT and HTML formats, I believe.

Best regards,
Michael Everson

>Date:          Mon, 02 Mar 1998 15:51:35 -0500
>From:          Bob Follett <[email-masked]>
>Organization:  Follett Information Services
>To:            "Moore, Jim" <[email-masked]>
>Cc:            [email-masked]
>Subject:       (SC22docs.453) SC22 N2669 - SC22 Chairman Report on JTC 1
>Ad Hocs
>
>Jim -
>
>I didn't take precise notes on the discussion, but more than one member
>of the Ad Hoc mentioned undocumented differences between Word 7
>(produced by the Office 95 version of Word)and Word 6, even though the
>formats are the same.  Because of difficulties that had been
>experienced, such as those mentioned in John Klensin's note, it was
>decided to eliminate Word 7 from the distribution format list.
>
>The Ad Hoc emphasized, however, that it was not specifying what version
>of Word can be used, only the distribution format.  So using Word 7 or
>the current Word 97 is OK as long as the document is saved and
>distributed in Word 6.  Note, however, that Word 97 uses a new
>underlying model of some sort (as I understand it) and as a result, some
>automatic features will be saved as text and not carried over into a
>document saved as Word 6.  Word 97 often gives a warning message before
>saving as Word 6, saying that some formatting may be lost.
>
>Regarding John's comments about Word versions, the Ad Hoc is keenly
>aware of this and is, as Keld mentioned, encouraging as much use of HTML
>as possible.  Bear in mind that the policy is attempting to cover a wide
>range of documents, from simple text to complex standards, produced by a
>large number of people all over the world, and accessed by a
>significantly larger number, at a reasonable cost to all those
>participants.  At least at this stage, it hasn't seen a good way to
>avoid use of the most commonly used word processing packages.
>
>One final note on a different topic:  In the future, please use the SC22
>reflector for a discussion of this type, not the SC22docs reflector.
>The SC22docs reflector is intended solely for the distribution of
>official documents.  Thanks.
>
>Regards,
>Bob
>
>James W. Moore, reply to [email-masked] wrote:
>>
>> I have a question about the Chairman's report:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22
>> >N2669
>> >
>> >TITLE:
>> >SC22 Chairman's Report on JTC 1 Ad Hoc Meetings
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >
>> >A number of modifications were made to the web policy document.  A new
>> >version was produced and is being circulated in JTC1 for ballot.  Some
>> >significant changes are:
>> >
>> >* Elimination of Word 7.0 as an acceptable document distribution format;
>>
>> As written, this seems to be a mistake. Although there is a version of
>> Microsoft Word designated as Version 7.0, it produces the same format as
>> Microsoft Word Version 6.0.  If JTC1 wishes to abolish the Word 7
>>format, then
>> it also abolishes the Word 6.
>>
>> I would suggest that what is meant is that JTC1 does not allow the "Word 97"
>> format. That is, in fact, a different format from Word 6.
>>
>> I would appreciate it if the chairman would clarify this issue.
>>
>> Regards, Jim Moore