On Sun, 2002-03-24 at 18:32, Virgil Arrington Jr. wrote: > From the Sane Anarchist, > > >I would like to have perfect compatability with Word, just like when I > >design > >a web page I want perfect compatability with Internet Explorer. But not at > >the loss of complying with the standards that browsers (or word processors) > >should be following anyway. > > Standards are nothing but man-made arbitrary rules, and they become more > arbitrary and meaningless if nobody follows them. I know none of us like to > admit this, but MS-Word, bad as it is, has become THE word processing > standard. I work in the legal profession and, while WordPerfect was the > standard for years with lawyers, we are now being forced into switching to > Word because our clients use it and demand that our documents be compatible > with Word. I can't very well tell my client that the reason my Abi created > document can't be read on his computer is because his MS-Word doesn't follow > the standards. My client couldn't give two hoots about standards.
Defining standards as man-made arbitrary rules is a bit simplistic. More or less everything is man made and arbitrary in this field. The important part, however, is that there are standardization committees and organizations which formulate these rules, formalize them, approve or reject them, publish them, and ultimately inforce them. MSWord is the de-facto standard word-processor out there. Its RTF implementation, however, is not. RTF is a standard that we strive to conform with. We do not strive to conform with broken implentations of the RTF specification. OpenOffice is also huge (and growing in popularity), but their RTF implementation sucks horribly. They took RTF 1.2, branched it, and made all sorts of horrible incompatible hacks to it. They don't handle our RTF. Should we break Abi so that they work? I don't think so. I refuse to let our standards complaince fall to an OO level. We will not compromise our integrity to cover up another's mistakes. For the record, MSWord is highly complaint with the RTF specification, so I don't view this so much as a problem. Sure, it doesn't honor a few of the RTF keywords that Abi uses. But then it just ignores them, for a minor loss in formatting. That's a small price to pay. Finally, I couldn't care if your client doesn't care about standards. He should. Dom /Strive to bring others up to your level, don't sulk down to theirs.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
