Only one good reason to approve OOXML as a standard...
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| dinotrac Mar 25, 2008 4:57 AM EDT |
and that's if it's any good. I am utterly unimpressed -- completely and totally, I might add -- by arguments that there should be one and only one standard for document-handling. It would be nice, but it's hardly compelling. The problem with OOXML is that it's not a good standard. If that gets fixed (How to fix it is beyond me), and it goes through the process -- without trying to buy countries off and subvert everything that makes a standards process mean something -- then, by all means, it should be accepted as a standard. |
| jezuch Mar 25, 2008 5:29 AM EDT |
I don't like the notion of "standards competition" (pushed by MS, BTW). It's nice if the existing standards fill slightly different niches (because then you could say "it's the best for my needs", based on the needs), but if not - should one kill the other? If all standards are good than there's no practical difference and any could be used (for example, I suppose there's a difference between DVD-R and DVD+R, but I've never seen it matter; another example: the recent HD standards war - I never understood why there was a war in the first place, they're different enough for both to be useful...) But, on the other hand, why push for a new standard when the existing one(s) suffice(s)? |
| Scott_Ruecker Mar 25, 2008 5:39 AM EDT |
I agree that there is no reason that there should only be one standard, and that there is no reason to bring another standard to the market if it sucks and is only another attempt to lock users in. |
| r_a_trip Mar 25, 2008 7:42 AM EDT |
The problem, AFAICS, is not another document standard. If it is something that really adds to the technical options, get the thing approved. The problem is the attempt to get a shoddy description of the MSO 2007 format labeled as a standard. Not only that, we don't even know for certain that MSO 2007 spits out what the proposed standard describes and if it does, will MSO 2009 do the same? Because of all this, the value in OOXML is minimal at best. |
| dinotrac Mar 25, 2008 8:42 AM EDT |
r_a_trip: Yup. Beyond just the junkiness of the proposal, you've hit on a key factor: The best argument for accepting an OOXML standard -- presuming an acceptable one can be drafted and approved by non-corrupted means, is that it will benefit the world of Microsoft users and those who wish to serve them. Unless Microsoft commits that it will adhere to its own standard today and in the future, then there is no point. That does not require freezing in place. All standards evolve. It simply requires that Microsoft, as it evolves, continue to work with appropriate bodies to improve and extend the standard as needed, and stick to the new and improved standard that everybody else can see and follow. Me, I'm not holding my breath. |
| techiem2 Mar 25, 2008 10:39 AM EDT |
Quoting:Unless Microsoft commits that it will adhere to its own standard today and in the future, then there is no point. And didn't they already say at some point that they won't be adhering to the standard if it doesn't fit their plans for office? |
| dinotrac Mar 25, 2008 10:52 AM EDT |
>And didn't they already say at some point that they won't be adhering to the standard if it doesn't fit their plans for office? Would need to know the context -- ie, "I can imagine a day when we would need something else" might not be alarming -- I can imagine a day when Linux will be passe. That said, it would be pretty damning, IMNSHO, if Microsoft won't even commit to its own standard. |
| techiem2 Mar 25, 2008 11:11 AM EDT |
I'd have to dig, but I think in was in an article posted here sometime in the past several months or so (may have been even farther back...time seems to be flying lately) |
| techiem2 Mar 25, 2008 11:15 AM EDT |
I'm not sure if this is the one I was thinking of, but here's one.
http://www.techworld.com/storage/features/index.cfm?featurei...
Quoting: Now consider this from Brian Jones, a Microsoft manager who has worked on OOXML for six years. In July, Jones was asked on his blog whether Microsoft would actually commit to conform to an officially standardised OOXML. His response: |
| dinotrac Mar 25, 2008 12:55 PM EDT |
dinotrac - EEEEEWWWW!!! One can commit without locking oneself in. For example, "We intend to lead evolution of the standard and we commit to following it, as Microsoft products are the primary reason to need OOXML. Obviously, we don't control ECMA, and those wild and crazy guys could do something so crazy we can't imagine, but, otherwise we will do everything we can to keep the standard usable and to follow it ourselves." |
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!