Not quite

Story: OpenDocument Debate Enters Round ThreeTotal Replies: 1
Author Content

May 25, 2006
8:11 AM EDT
Your article falls short on one vital point. Your definition of "standard" is a little flawed.

This is an example:

That's how I responded. If you want to know whether this is about standards, check the ITD policy itself. If you want to know whether I think Microsoft's format meets the qualifications of a standard, the answer is a resounding no.

MIcrosoft's format could easily meet the qualification of a standard. But the debate isn't about whether it is a standard or not (it is). The debate is about standards vs. open standards. You have mixed the two and seem to be saying that in order to qualify to be a standard, said item must be open. You equate standard and open standard.

The current MSOffice document format is a standard. The problem is that it is not an open standard. Not everyone has access to it. That is the crux of the whole debate and, from what I know, the reason MS's Open XML fell short in the Mass. debate. Open XML is a standard, it's just not completely open.

May 25, 2006
8:48 AM EDT
In addition, Microsoft will be able to extend their proposed standard at any time, making it incompatible with everyone else's implementation.

Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]

Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!