Jean Armour Polly wrote:
It literally takes one more second to "print" a Word file to pdf. (Is that what you are looking for, Thomas?) PDFs are good (and reasonably standardized) for documents that are not meant to be re-edited (such as meeting minutes). Alternatively if the desire is for a format that could also be re-edited, OpenDocument (the native format of OpenOffice and available for Word as a plugin) is an ISO standard that is increasing in international adoption. http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/01/04/Open-Document-Format-gained-moment...
HTML is also OK; while it lacks lacks many of the advanced presentation features of MS Office and OpenDocument, we _are_ after all talking about simple things like meeting minutes. On the other hand, if there is to be a wider policy about using an open format it should be something more flexible than HTML. Without claiming to speak for anyone else, Nick, I think there is increasing sensitivity in the choice of file formats that are closed and whose use is subject to the whim of a single vendor. This threat is not just theoretical; here's just the latest indication of how that whim is being abused: http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&arti... http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&arti... (I wonder why the IP types aren't squaking even louder about this. If being denied access to your own files isn't a breach of creators' rights, what is?) Having said all that, I agree that "wait for more staff" appears to be an insufficient reason to reject a suggestion that requires no more than a few more button presses. - Evan