- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 12:20:49 -0500
- To: Harvey Bingham <hbingham@acm.org>
- CC: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Harvey Bingham wrote (about the text formats definition of checkpoint 2.2): > > I like the idea. Is it too open-ended? Some SGML applications may be > problematic: they may use exotic features of SGML that few systems > can support. > > That ",etc." can let in a bag of worms. The "etc." is only part of the list of examples, so I don't think it's the culprit. Perhaps it's the "all" in "all SGML and XML applications regardless of Internet Media Type." > 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? - Ian -- Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs Tel: +1 831 457-2842 Cell: +1 917 450-8783
Received on Monday, 19 March 2001 12:21:02 UTC