Jonathon Blake wrote: > Duncan wrote: > >> "purely textual and formatted" And you don't think RTF fulfills >> that criteria? > > > Not really. It is textual, but not formatted. [And yes, I am being > picky.] > > BTW, a) ASCII is a character encoding scheme. b) ASCII was > replaced by ANSI back in the early eighties. someone else corrected this. c) ANSI and ASCII are > suitable only for US English. Yes, of course, I failed to consider that in my article. I'll think about that one. [US English words don't have > accents. British English and Foreign words can have accents. I've written British English all my life and never needed an accent. What are you refering to here?
Let me re-phrase my statement on RTF to: "If you need a format which is most likely to be supported by both opensource and commerical word processors then RTF is your best bet at present." I'll look into that with Unicode plain zero... Duncan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
