"Doug Ewell" <doug(_at_)ewellic(_dot_)org> 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/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf