"Doug Ewell" <doug@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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. RFCformat is different from a market share format by the purpose. Do youhave been think about the word "compatibility" and "standard"? Here isIETF, not a market.. ;; Sincerely, -- Byung-Hee HWANG, KNU ∑ WWW: http://izb.knu.ac.kr/~bh/_______________________________________________Ietf mailing listIetf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf