Re: [Bug-gnupedia] Content Format

[Bob Dodd]

--- Mike Warren <address@hidden> wrote:
> > 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.

Is that also true of RTF? (which is the format I had in mind more than
one of M$ more 'loopy' internal formats) I thought the whole point of
RTF (and its licensing) was specifically geared at sharing content. I
would imagine the licencing may say we can't modify the format, but
then we wouldn't want to: we just want to parse the content for
conversion/display.

> > 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.

That's completely missing the point. Formats like TEI and Latex, and
the tools to support them, are at best "minority" formats in terms of
general usage. And TEI is the minority's minority... It's not that they
aren't good, or that we shouldn't recommend them as preferred content
formats. It's that they aren't supported source formats for the input
tools (of which Word is the most common) that the vast majority of the
world uses today.  

If we are going to insist on particlar content formats, we had better
be sure that the general public (who will hopefully write the majority
of the entries, not just those on this mailing list) have access to
tools to generate them. And that they are comfortable about using those
tools.


> > Word also has the possibility of style-sheets and
> > macros/forms/templates
> 
> So too with SGML and XML.

Yes, but why do you expect my dad to write "programs" in XML? His
speciality is the history of coal mining, not XML. When he writes
articles he does so with a wysiwyg word processor, not Emacs and
</tags>.


> > 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.

OK, let's be more precise :-)) 

There is after all, no difference between a well known, well supported
proprietory format that is free to parse (not generate, just parse),
and one developed by FSF: they can both be parsed.

Btw why are you comparing file formats with executable code and a GUI?
Are you saying that Wine should never be shipped with Linux because it
allows the viewing of Word generated documents on Linux? It doesn't
make sense...

> > 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.

You still have to convince authors that it's worth their while to learn
another text input system (assuming you can't persuade M$ to output
latex :-)) Ok, that last but was a joke, but we should be wary of
coying the M$ way of the world and artificially limit input formats.

> > 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.

And free speech allows as many people as possible to express
themselves. 

Pre-selecting the content format as rigourously as you sugest will
disenfranchise many.
 
Entries must be free to read, free to store and redistribute, and the
content free to parse in any tool that can. Beyond that, who are we to
tell people what the best content format for their entry is?

/Bob Dodd


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. 
http://auctions.yahoo.com/