Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal draft formatting standards required

[Byung-Hee HWANG <[e-mail]>]

"Doug Ewell" <[e-mail]> writes:

> Douglas Otis <dotis at mail dash abuse dot org> wrote:
>
>> Reliance upon open source tools ensures the original RFCs and ID can
>> be maintained by others, without confronting unresolvable
>> compatibility issues.
>
> Whether a tool is open source or not has nothing to do with how many
> people know how to use it.  Are you talking about maintainability of
> the documents or of the tools?
>
>> It would also be a bad practice to rely upon unstable proprietary
>> formats having limited OS support and significant security issues.
>
> Oh, stop.  Word 2007 can read and save Word 97 documents.
> Applications for Windows, which has a 90% to 93% desktop market share,
> can hardly be said to suffer from "limited OS support."  And turning
> off macros is becoming more and more common among Word users; it's
> even a separate non-default document format under Word 2007.
>
> I know The Penguin doesn't like the fact that Word is closed-source,
> but -- like the multiple discussions being lumped under "RFC archival
> format" -- we need to separate that issue from questions of whether
> the app is any good.  And if we're talking about an author using Word
> (or TextPad or roff or whatever) to pre-process a file into an RFC
> Editor-friendly format, which can then be converted to traditional RFC
> text or HTML or PDF or something, then isn't the horror of using Word
> limited to that author?

Doug,

Already, above, Douglas pointed out for your comments correctly. RFC
format is different from a market share format by the purpose. Do you
have been think about the word "compatibility" and "standard"? Here is
IETF, not a market.. ;;  

Sincerely,

-- 
Byung-Hee HWANG, KNU 
∑ WWW: http://izb.knu.ac.kr/~bh/