 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> http://practical-tech.com/business/microsoft-cant-support-open-xml/
> THIS is a joke, surely?
No, it's normal ISO standards stuff. Nobody's prototype of a standard
ever supports the standard as passed. Surprise, surprise, software
written before the standard was passed doesn't include support for the
changes ISO made in the standard before they passed it.
> So now we have an ISO standard that nobody can actually implement?
No. It just hasn't been implemented yet. And nobody *wants* to implement
it. They want to be able to get at the data with different software,
which is what this does.
And a 6000 page specification isn't unreasonable for something like
this, either. The ODF specification isn't complete either, unless you
include the source code for OpenOffice.org as part of it. Is anyone
*really* going to implement a competitor to OpenOffice.org that doesn't
do anything not already in that standard?
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> If they didn't, I really can't understand how the standardization
> committee can approve of a standard which doesn't actually specify
> exactly what it is standardizing.
ODF doesn't specify the formatting either.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> And a 6000 page specification isn't unreasonable for something like
> this, either. The ODF specification isn't complete either, unless you
> include the source code for OpenOffice.org as part of it. Is anyone
> *really* going to implement a competitor to OpenOffice.org that doesn't
> do anything not already in that standard?
Ask me later this month...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
To be fair, I never said it was "bad", only that they did it :)
Although, I personally think it's a rotten decision, it's really no
worse than any other political activity.
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> They weren't "forced" to do anything. They could have just let ODF kill
> one of their flagship products, gone bankrupt, and left they way for
> superior competetors to take their place. :-D
Well yes, there was that option, but unsurprisingly they didn't choose it
:-D
>> MS probably think it's just as stupid as the rest of us and only did the
>> absolute minimum amount of work to get it through (I guess it was better
>> than just changing the file extension from .doc to .oxml or whatever, but
>> only just).
>
> So now we have an ISO standard that nobody can actually implement?
But at least any organisation that has some rule like "you must only use
software than supports open formats" can still buy MS Office.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> So now we have an ISO standard that nobody can actually implement?
It's not that nobody *can* implement it. It's that MS hasn't yet
released the patches for their product that incorporates the changes
that ISO made to the standard.
This was interesting:
http://ileriseviye.org/blog/?p=1233
A short summary, with a link to the full report for those who care. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
