Peter De Berdt wrote:
> On 29 Sep 2009, at 16:13, Marnen Laibow-Koser wrote:
> 
>>> OK... I Understand...
>>> But this is a requirement from my client...
>>
>> If it were my client, I'd be asking why.  The fact that the client
>> excluded RTF suggests that the client is being unreasonable -- I can
>> think of no use case where RTF *shouldn't* be just as good an option  
>> as
>> MS Word format.
> 
> And to put it quite simple: the old Word format is a closed format and
> there is no rubygem available for reading or writing Word files on
> Linux since no one has gone through the effort of reverse engineering
> it (and there are more than enough alternative solutions available
> such as RTF and HTML).

I believe you may be incorrect on the reverse-engineering part.  Plenty 
of other software reads and writes old MS Word files -- which means that 
*someone* figured out the spec...

> 
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Peter De Berdt

Best,
--
Marnen Laibow-Koser
http://www.marnen.org
mar...@marnen.org
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby 
on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rubyonrails-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to