W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > January to March 2001

Re: Proposal: Checkpoint 2.2: Move information about textformats from Note to checkpoint

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 12:38:44 -0500 (EST)
To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
cc: Harvey Bingham <hbingham@ACM.org>, <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0103191237100.8577-100000@tux.w3.org>
On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, Ian Jacobs wrote:

  > The following may claim
  > to have XML-based "save-as" even though they may include proprietary
  > content. A Note should mention that properly left out are
  > proprietary extensions and formats like Adobe.pdf, MSWord.doc,
  > WordPerfect.wpd, etc.]

  Is "proprietary" really the distinguishing factor? I don't mind
  that PostScript is proprietary since the format is open. Is there
  a technical characteristic (or more than one) to these formats
  that we can/should point to?

I rather like the technical characteristic "these are text-based formats - it
is possible to read the actual words inside them". RTF is a proprietary
format in the sense that it is specified by Microsoft, but then HTML is
specified by the W3C.

Received on Monday, 19 March 2001 12:38:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:29 UTC