Re: RAW vs. raw image format

From	Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	alt.usage.english
Subject	Re: RAW vs. raw image format
Date	2023-02-19 16:34 +0300
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<20230219163456.9a02598f92e282b633f4b59e@gmail.com> (permalink)
References	(6 earlier) <tsemjk$29rld$2@dont-email.me> <9b5c5856-5cd8-496d-9f12-1de47111b294n@googlegroups.com> <gnsouh5q5i5du3jg8qa349cidtftoov94m@4ax.com> <dauouhh0pjoti3vak0kt61ag4hes34qegf@4ax.com> <700fe9f1-688d-43db-970d-ba913b973549n@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

Peter T. Daniels:

> I know that [RTF] only as something FrameMaker could
> output (it couldn't do .doc, for whatever reason) that
> Word could interpret --

Framemaker is not meant in a generator of .doc or .rtf
files. It is a system that can produce high-quality
documents on its own. For a generator of .doc files, see
Pandoc.

RTF is an early proprietary Microsoft document format, used
as an early EEE[1] weapon, according to Wikipedia:

   Microsoft did not initially make the RTF specification
   publicly available, making it difficult for competitors
   to develop document conversion features in their
   applications. Because Microsoft's developers had access
   to the specification, Microsoft's applications had better
   compatibility with the format. Also, each time Microsoft
   changed the RTF specification, Microsoft's own
   applications had a lead in time-to-market, because
   competitors had to redevelop their applications after
   studying the newer version of the format.

MS are doing the same with e-mail and Google with the web.
Nevertheless, it became quite portable and supported by many
text editors and word processors thanks to its simplicity
and text nature (no binary!).

> without losing any formatting at all (except the more
> subtle word- and character-spacing needed in
> typesetting -- which, incidentally, Word has gotten
> considerably better at). .Rtf files were enormous compared
> to either .fm or .doc files. (.Docx files aren't much
> bigger than .doc files.)

No wonder, if .doc files are compressed (even as .docx files
are), because text compression is very efficient.  I
conjecture that a typical .rtf file compressed with, say,
7zip, would be comparable is size to a corresponding Word
document, if not smaller. Separating compression from text
context adds a lot of freedom, flexibility, and portability.

I think it wrong to capitalise file extensions if they occur
at start of sentence.
____________________
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish

-- 
()  ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   -- against proprietary attachments

Back to alt.usage.english | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: RAW vs. raw image format "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2023-02-15 10:24 -0800
  Re: RAW vs. raw image format Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2023-02-19 16:34 +0300
    Re: RAW vs. raw image format "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2023-02-19 07:19 -0800
      Re: RAW vs. raw image format Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2023-02-19 22:00 +0300
        Re: RAW vs. raw image format "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2023-02-19 13:21 -0800
          Re: RAW vs. raw image format Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2023-02-20 00:39 +0300
            Re: RAW vs. raw image format Madhu <enometh@meer.net> - 2023-02-20 12:11 +0530
              Re: RAW vs. raw image format lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> - 2023-02-21 15:54 -0600
                Re: RAW vs. raw image format Madhu <enometh@meer.net> - 2023-02-22 06:48 +0530
                Re: RAW vs. raw image format Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2023-02-21 18:35 -0800
                Re: RAW vs. raw image format Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2023-02-23 19:34 +0300
                Re: RAW vs. raw image format "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2023-02-23 08:39 -0800
                Re: RAW vs. raw image format lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> - 2023-02-21 22:12 -0600
                Re: RAW vs. raw image format Tak To <takto@alum.mit.eduxx> - 2023-02-22 11:30 -0500
                Re: RAW vs. raw image format lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> - 2023-02-22 11:15 -0600
                Re: RAW vs. raw image format Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2023-02-22 09:36 -0800
                Re: RAW vs. raw image format Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2023-02-23 19:21 +0300
                Re: RAW vs. raw image format Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2023-02-23 00:31 +0300
                Re: RAW vs. raw image format Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2023-02-23 19:31 +0300
                Re: RAW vs. raw image format Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2023-02-23 00:23 +0300
              Re: RAW vs. raw image format Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2023-02-23 00:21 +0300
        Re: RAW vs. raw image format TonyCooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> - 2023-02-19 16:30 -0500

csiph-web