Warp wrote:
> Tom Austin <taustin> wrote:
>> http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS2810967760.html
> 
>   I haven't been following this whole OOXML thing very closely, but as far
> as I know the problem with Microsoft's OOXML is that regardless of being

	I have not been following it closely either, but it has been coming up 
more and more - probably because it is so close to the voting.

> 
>   Anyways, and to my point finally, what I don't really understand is why
> Microsoft is doing this. If their intention is to create a document format
> which only they can implement fully, why make it open at all? Why not keep
> it completely closed and proprietary?
> 

I think it is MS way of saying they are open and are an accepted standard.
people like you or I - and most of the other people using POV here - see 
through it, but there are plenty who actually make decisions who don't 
have a clue.  Hold up a credential and - well, it must be the way to go.


>   Or is this some kind of PR stunt? "This is open, this is standardized,
> this is not proprietary, this is thus good and you should start storing
> all your official documents in this format. Don't fall for those third-party
> open formats made by amateurs. True professionals only use formats created
> by true professionals." Yet it's not as open as they claim to be. MS is
> still in control because third-parties cannot fully implement the format.
> 
>   As for the article you linked, I really don't understand why so many
> companies are voting pro this standard. Why would it be of their interest
> to give MS yet another weapon against other companies? Aren't they simply
> hurting themselves in this process? Strenghtening their dependency on MS?
> 

The article was my question - the voting is being stacked with companies 
supporting this.  I don't think it is a case of independent companies 
deciding that it is a good thing to do - I think it is MS 'persuading' 
companies to jump on the band wagon.  Just look at one of the countries 
- added 23 voting members to the existing 6 at literally the last minute 
- all of the voted 'yes'.

My thought is that an organization such as the ISO has a lot of 
credibility - I think that one company being able to stack the voting 
like this can only hurt that credibility.



Tom

Post a reply to this message