 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> it's not as "open" as it claims to be. This is because it contains
> things like "this is rendered like Word 95 renders it", without any more
> instructions nor specifications which would explain how "Word 95 renders it".
> Only Microsoft itself knows exactly the algorithm inside Word 95 which
> renders that item, and MS is not going to make it open.
Debatably, even M$ doesn't really know how the old code they kludged
together actually works. But they just cut and paste it into each new
version of Word to ensure backwards compatibility...
> Anyways, and to my point finally, what I don't really understand is why
> Microsoft is doing this.
Certain people have declared "from now on, we will only use open
document formats". So M$ responded by creating an "open" document
format, to encourage these people to keep using it. (Oh yeah, it's not
actually "open" at all. But it does *say* "open" on it... that's good
enough, right?)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tom Austin wrote:
> Which is exactly what makes it hard for anyone to cry foul. They are
> playing by the rules - likely not within the spirit of the rules, but
> still by the letter.
And, technically, if Microsoft *did* do something that required you to
stop using Microsoft software, you *could* reengineer something to
maintain or convert your old documents. Probably easier than
reverse-engineering the binary Word formats. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Remember the good old days, when we
used to complain about cryptography
being export-restricted?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 09:54:14 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Or is this some kind of PR stunt?
Bingo.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>
> 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?
>
> Perhaps it's some kind of battered-wife-syndrome, or stockholm-syndrome.
> "My mighty big husband hits me, but I deserve it, and he knows what's good
> for me. I am the guilty party here. He commands, I obey, because I deserve
> to be punished."
Probably not exactly like that but quite similar. A large number of
companies in the IT sector completely *depend* on Microsoft.
Most important all companies using an MS IT infrastructure (Windows on
all desktops anyway but especially Office for all company documents and
communication) are in the same situation. If non-MS formats are
required by the government and especially if they are required for
quality management certification they would be in serious trouble. Even
if MS would eat the pill and offer ODF support the task for converting
all legacy files using all those "rendered like Word 95" features would
be a nightmare.
So if ISO was a democracy you could bet OOXML will get ISO certification
with overwhelming majority - even without any direct influence from
Microsoft.
The fact that this attitude is extremely short-sighted does not change
anything about this - just have a look at politics, people act extremely
short-sighted in elections as well...
The whole issue is a very nice demonstration that "No one ever got fired
for choosing Microsoft" is not only right, it is also a self-fulfilling
prophecy.
Christoph
--
Views of the Earth: http://earth.imagico.de/
Images, include files, tutorials: http://www.imagico.de/
MegaPOV with mechanics simulation: http://megapov.inetart.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I'm happy to say that Denmark did not vote yes to the OOXML specification
despite a majority of Microsoft partners being in the committee. They
recommended "No, with comments".
What this actually means is that they made a list of criticisms of the
specification, and will approve of the specification provided that all
points of critique are addressed.
This might sound worrying at first. However, when you read the comprehensive
list of criticisms, it becomes clear that what is actually called for is a
complete reworking of the specification before Denmark is prepared to
recommend it as a ISO-standard. Basically they cover all those arguments
against the format that are out there, plus several I haven't heard before.
The 64 pages of criticism can be read here:
http://www.ds.dk/_root/scripts/getmedia.asp?media_id=2791
Rune
--
http://runevision.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rune wrote:
> The 64 pages of criticism can be read here:
> http://www.ds.dk/_root/scripts/getmedia.asp?media_id=2791
Rest now, mightly OOXML, for you have been 0wned.
http://www.hlcomic.com/index.php?date=2006-04-14
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v3 wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>
>> Anyways, and to my point finally, what I don't really understand is why
>> Microsoft is doing this.
>
> Certain people have declared "from now on, we will only use open
> document formats". So M$ responded by creating an "open" document
> format, to encourage these people to keep using it. (Oh yeah, it's not
> actually "open" at all. But it does *say* "open" on it... that's good
> enough, right?)
>
It's good enough if MS can get enough votes.....
Tom
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,136711-c,techindustrytrends/article.html
If this article is trustworthy, there is reason to rejoice. :)
Rune
--
http://runevision.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rune wrote:
> http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,136711-c,techindustrytrends/article.html
>
> If this article is trustworthy, there is reason to rejoice. :)
Nah. It just got rejected on this particular round of voting. Narrowly.
There'll be a next time soon enough...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> (Oh yeah, it's not
>> actually "open" at all. But it does *say* "open" on it... that's good
>> enough, right?)
>>
>
> It's good enough if MS can get enough votes.....
Indeed. It's kinda dissapointing how many things in life come down to
something as subjective and unscientific as a vote...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
