(1) Has anyone ever actually verified that MS's (e.g.
Word's) own RTF output complies with their official
standard? I wonder if the problem might be that it
doesn't quite, and some companies know this, either
because they have an in with MS or because they've
reverse-engineered it, and they're catering to an MS
world, so they go with MS extended ways and features
and forget the public spec.
(2) Putting a .doc extension on an RTF file is
confusing, though no doubt it does provide a modicum
of convenience for some users. How about a compromise
like calling it "[filename].rtf.doc", and/or make the
menu item for it "...as RTF with .doc extension"?
Either or both of these would save the convenient
Open/association, while warning users what is going
on, so people don't have to keep explaining on this list.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com
-----------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to
abiword-user-request@abisource.com with the word
unsubscribe in the message body.
Received on Sun Nov 14 01:38:38 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Nov 14 2004 - 01:38:39 CET