i guess it depends upon the nature of the content (aka a list of
requirements might be helpful).the RFCs seem to work pretty well via
plain text. then again that requires that illustrations be made via
clumsy character representations. we could rely upon PNGs for that but
that would require an external reference from the document (unless we
MIME encode them in place -- too hideous to even contemplate :o).
let's see where it goes. hopefully others in the group will chime in. i
have the tools to go either way, but feel wierd proposing open standards
via closed frameworks...
b
Ken Yagen wrote:
> Bill,
>
> I agree open standards are good, and would love to go with an open
> standard for documents, but the problem is that for most people, the
> tools are just too difficult. I don't want to have to edit documents in
> an XML editor because I'm not accustomed to using one day to day like I
> am Word. That is probably the case for most people bound to a Windows
> desktop and if we want to do any type of formatting on our documents. I
> know some probably prefer other tools and are welcome to use them, but
> we need conversion to a standard to have interoperability. If you are
> the editor and are publishing for others to review, either PDF or Word
> are good choices. If others have to edit or incorporate your doc into
> something else, we should probably go with Word. You're right though,
> the group needs to make the decision which is why I raised it to begin
> with and offered up SAML's document as a starting point as they probably
> spent more time on this subject than was necessary trying to be
> "open-standard" friendly.
>
> Ken Yagen
> Director, Software Development
> CrossLogix, Inc
> www.crosslogix.com
>
>
>
