scott wrote:

> You mean the standard could be better than it is?  That does not mean 
> it's a bad idea.  In fact it's quite a good idea, as it gives developers 
> a much better chance to compete with MS.

A standard that's purposely designed to be complicated and difficult to 
understand? Sounds like a bad idea to me...

(That's ignoring the fact that it's designed to support exactly the 
feature set that Word has, without being extensible in any way, so that 
anybody who tries to implement it will have to basically implement a 
carbon copy of Word that works exactly the way Word works. Hmm, I smell 
a lawsuit...)

I don't hold out much hope for this standard making it "easier" for 
people to "compete" with MS. (As if "competing" with MS is even a sane 
concept...)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message