Re: [Bug-gnupedia] Content Format

[Mike Warren]

Bob Dodd <address@hidden> writes:

> What exactly *is* the problem with (widely-used) proprietory
> formats?

They are proprietary and in many cases the very file format falls
under copyright or patent law, making a free implementation
impossible. Supporting proprietary formats -- even ones which aren't
yet patented or copyrighted -- encourages such behavior, IMO.

> In the case of Word, most of the computer-literate world can, and
> does, use its front end, and many more tools can
> import/export/read/present Rich Text Format (including competing
> products) than will ever support Latex or TEI source formats.

So? Just because lots of people use Windows doesn't mean that using
GNU/Linux is a bad idea. Nor does many people using proprietary
formats mean that *they* are a good idea, either.

> Word also has the possibility of style-sheets and
> macros/forms/templates

So too with SGML and XML.

> It strikes me that well known, well supported formats should be
> accepted. There is after all, no difference between a well known,
> well supported proprietory format, and one developed by FSF: [..]

Then there is no difference between Windows and GNU/Linux.

> To give a real example. My dad writes articles on local North-East
> England history for a magazine. He can just about cope with Word on
> his Mac (the publisher gives him a style sheet and a template to
> work from),

Many journals provide their own style files for LaTeX documents.

> He was very enthusiastic about the encyclopedia though, and it would
> a shame to see people like him put off posting entries because of
> zelotry against Microstoft and other commercial companies on our
> part.

It's not anti-corporate jealousness it's anti-proprietary.

We are not building a free-as-in-cost encyclopedia; we are building a
free-as-in-speech repository of articles.

-- 
address@hidden
<URL:http://www.mike-warren.com>
GPG: 0x579911BD :: 87F2 4D98 BDB0 0E90 EE2A  0CF9 1087 0884 5799 11BD