 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-6237408.html
--
I will be brief but not nearly so brief as Salvador Dali, who gave the
world's shortest speech. He said, "I will be so brief I am already
finished," then he sat down.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Invisible
Subject: Re: OK, guys. No more atacks on M$. I promise (not)
Date: 16 Apr 2008 09:19:24
Message: <4805fcdc$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Doctor John wrote:
> http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-6237408.html
Oh, wait - this junk actually passed as a standard?
And there I was thinking the process works...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Oh, wait - this junk actually passed as a standard?
Have you actually read the standard?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Invisible
Subject: Re: OK, guys. No more atacks on M$. I promise (not)
Date: 16 Apr 2008 09:51:30
Message: <48060462@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> Oh, wait - this junk actually passed as a standard?
>
> Have you actually read the standard?
From cover to cover? No. (Have you?)
I've read enough to know what a bad idea is. (E.g., using bitmaps to
store flags rather than, say, named tags. Undefined behaviour related to
old versions of Word. And so on.)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Have you actually read the standard?
>
> From cover to cover? No. (Have you?)
No me neither, just the first part.
> I've read enough to know what a bad idea is.
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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Thu, 17 Apr 2008 08:59:53 +0100, scott <sco### [at] laptop com> did
spake, saying:
>>> Have you actually read the standard?
>>
>> From cover to cover? No. (Have you?)
>
> No me neither, just the first part.
>
>> I've read enough to know what a bad idea is.
>
> 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.
Only in the creation of new OOXML documents, if you want to convert your
old Word/Excel-02/07 docs into OOXML you either have to accept that things
will be changed slightly and re-check all your documents or use the
depreciated tags that only Microsoft knows how to parse correctly.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Invisible
Subject: Re: OK, guys. No more atacks on M$. I promise (not)
Date: 17 Apr 2008 05:42:45
Message: <48071b95$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> You mean the standard could be better than it is? That does not mean
> it's a bad idea. In fact it's quite a good idea, as it gives developers
> a much better chance to compete with MS.
A standard that's purposely designed to be complicated and difficult to
understand? Sounds like a bad idea to me...
(That's ignoring the fact that it's designed to support exactly the
feature set that Word has, without being extensible in any way, so that
anybody who tries to implement it will have to basically implement a
carbon copy of Word that works exactly the way Word works. Hmm, I smell
a lawsuit...)
I don't hold out much hope for this standard making it "easier" for
people to "compete" with MS. (As if "competing" with MS is even a sane
concept...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Darren New
Subject: Re: OK, guys. No more atacks on M$. I promise (not)
Date: 17 Apr 2008 12:33:03
Message: <48077bbf$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook wrote:
> you either have to accept that
> things will be changed slightly and re-check all your documents or use
> the depreciated tags that only Microsoft knows how to parse correctly.
This was my point. If you use ODF, you have to do that every time you
change word processor anyway, since ODF doesn't specify layout any
better than OOXML does.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jim Henderson
Subject: Re: OK, guys. No more atacks on M$. I promise (not)
Date: 17 Apr 2008 12:51:18
Message: <48078006$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:42:00 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> As if "competing" with MS is even a sane concept...
Lots of people do it. My employer does, for one, and has for quite a
long time....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Orchid XP v8
Subject: Re: OK, guys. No more atacks on M$. I promise (not)
Date: 17 Apr 2008 13:17:42
Message: <48078636$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> As if "competing" with MS is even a sane concept...
>
> Lots of people do it. My employer does, for one, and has for quite a
> long time....
That's just silly. One of three things will happen:
1. MS release a product that does the same thing. Everybody will use
that instead of yours. (It says MS on it, therefore it is superior.) You
will die.
2. You do well. MS buys you. You die.
3. You do well. MS doesn't release a product that does what yours does.
Thus you aren't really "competing" with MS because you're in a different
market.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
