Sunday, May 24, 2009

OpenWeb 05/25/2009 (a.m.)

  • What mr. Weir and mr. Allison also don?t tell you is that controlling a standard is very much a competitive instrument. Imagine Microsoft extending Word or Excel with new capabilities (like tex-like layout rules, new graphics filters or new advanced mathematical functions). If the documents had to be saved in a format controlled by someone else, they could stall the standardization of these features until the product they support catches up. Or postpone the functions indefinitely effectively nixing the advantages. That is why Microsoft had to have a standard they could influence. That is why mr. Weir and mr. Allison are pushing ODF. While these standards now are the responsibilities of standards organizations (Oasis and Ecma for ODF and OOXML resp.), they are still very much driven by corporations with their own agendas. This is as true for ODF as it is for OOXML. That?s why we need both standards. We cannot afford corporate politics playing delaying games with our standards. And whatever happened to the argument that a standard was important to retain document fidelity for the future? Wasn't the whole idea behind writing down the specification that the way documents render and behave would be defined by an open specification rather than an implementation (which is subject to change)? Or was that argument only valid when it could be used effectively against Word and Excel? Double standards make me sick. Please face up to it. State that you expect Microsoft to adhere to ODF 1.2 once ratified. Until then quit trying to spin this as a defiency in MS Office. It is a failure in ODF. Owe up to it and get back to work! Please!

    tags: odf, ooxml, openformula, interoperability


Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

Post a Comment