On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Gil Andre wrote: > RTF files are actually highly portable. It's (in fact) the > only file format that Microsoft has ever officially published, > even though they keep modifying it with each release of Word... > <grin> > > This being said, RTF also offers slightly better text formatting > than HTML, which is probably why it was chosen. > Perhaps, but it lacks one very salient ingrediant. It doesn't have community consensus as W3C html does. And, as has been noted, the only accessible authoring tools which produce RTF are on Windows. So, I'm disappointed by Book Share on this point. Perhaps it generates better looking text. But, I don't believe RTF supports structure quite markup anywhere as well as html does. Since Book Share supports DAISY, at least in theory, it would seem that structural markup should win out over good looks.