- 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>
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. Charles
Received on Monday, 19 March 2001 12:38:47 UTC