ms word vs html ?

[troy]

On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 08:17:59PM, augie the opensource zealot wrote:
> 
> i am trying to convice one of my profesors that we should not use both
> ms word and html to document a project, and in fact we should not use
> ms word at all.
> 
> below is what i sent to my prof. the response was agreeable but
> somewhat hesitant. so i'd like to collect some more evidence in my
> favor.
> 
> so i am looking for evidence, examples, proof, of why an open standard
> like HTML is better than a proprietary one like ms word. and more
> specifically why html is a better fit than ms word.

The proof would be to find out what version of Word your prof. uses and if
it's not the latest and "greatest" find a way to send him a word doc written
from a more recent version.

That's a really big deal.  Save something in word 2002 and try reading it in
word '97.  Same point for the free word readers out there -- each time
there's a new .doc format, the reader has to be updated too.  A word .doc is
a bad choice for everyone, not only the 5% of us who use alternative OS's

These two paragraphs are really nothing more than what you said in two
sentences :-), but your prof. probably needs the longer explanation to "get
it."

I've a few minor criticisms of your msg.  An argument with statements that
aren't really correct, then it tends to make your absolutely correct other
arguments less persuasive.

> >it seems like an unnecessary duplication of effort to document
> >something in both word, and html. chapter committees will have to
> >produce their work in both formats instead of just one, and the two
> >seperate editors will have to coordinate their work so that they are
> >in sync with eachother.

Really, they'd just do File->Save As->html (Unless it was a gov't or HP, in
which case they'd have bi-weekly meetings to sync up)

> >all this seems unnecessary since an html format can do everything (and
> >more) that the word format can do. an html document can be printed from a
> >browser just like a word document is from word.
> >
> >plus an html document is more advantageous than a word document
> >because it is accessible to everyone from anywhere on the network. a
> >word document is not.

That's the point you gotta hammer -- html is accessible to everyone, it's OS
and client agnostic.

> >
> >furthermore, and this is where i go off on my opensource tangent, because
> >HTML is an open standard its contents will always be able to be viewed
> >and changed at any time in the future. the same cannot be said for MS
> >word format. the word format changes with each new release of word, so
> >that in the future your new version of word may not be able to understand
> >your old document, and you could possibly lose all your data entirely.

word is usally pretty good about reading older file formats; it's the other
way around that proves to be a problem.

Good luck in your cause!  The migration to open file formats is far more
important than the choice of OS or office suite.

-t