TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: Open doc format From:Andrew Plato <gilliankitty -at- yahoo -dot- com> To:"TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com> Date:Thu, 28 Nov 2002 12:30:17 -0800 (PST)
"Jan Henning" wrote
> That may be true of some open standards that are designed by committee.
> But that is not the case with all such standards. And indeed there are
> many very successful open document formats, e.g., MP3, Tiff, and XML.
Yes, and some of them took forever to get there. In many cases, things like MP3
were just one implementation that gained popularity and as such became a
standard.
Market-driven standards are always the best because they respond to the actual
want of the market. Committees are notorious at producing tepid standards that
include too many compromises. Many companies put out standards with the hope
they will become adopted. Sometimes this works (.doc) sometimes it fails
(RealAudio).
> > Microsoft and others have long since moved ahead with their own
> > implementations.
>
> Which has advantages and disadvantages. Swift implementation can be one
> such advantage (although it should not be forgotten that there are also
> companies with large committees). Low quality can be a disadvantage.
> The Word document format (.doc) is a good example: It structural
> shortcomings have long since greatly reduced its reliability and
> stability.
...and that does not seem to be bothering the market. .doc is phenomenally
successful as a format. When the markets are left to do their job, people
choose what they want.
The other thing to consider is that most people don't need or care for all the
advanced features that some tech writers demand. Tech writers comprise a very
small chunk of the market, and as such, products are not always made or
marketed for them. What a few tech writers deem as "low quality" or "structural
shortcomings" are of no consequence to the rest of the planet.
Andrew Plato
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Order RoboHelp X3 in November and receive $100 mail in rebate, FREE WebHelp
Merge Module and the new RoboPDF - add powerful PDF output functionality
to RoboHelp X3. Order online today at http://www.ehelp.com/techwr-l
Check out SnagIt - The Screen Capture Standard!
Download a free 30-day trial from http://www.techsmith.com/rdr/txt/twr
Find out what all the other tech writers, including Dan, already know!
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
