- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Setting a New Standard
|
|
|
Comments (11)
While I do believe that OO.o should, and really will need to, take advantage of the small window of openness that OOXML has, I also believe there should be no let up in the campaign to keep OOXML from ever being ratified as an ISO standard.
> keep OOXML from ever being ratified as an ISO standard.
Agreed. We need to encourage the adoption of one standard, which anyone may implement, so that vendors can then compete on the quality of the implementation.
This whole ooxml nonsense is just a rather transparent ploy by the monopolist to keep a deathgrip on desktop document formats.
Agreed. We need to encourage the adoption of one standard, which anyone may implement, so that vendors can then compete on the quality of the implementation.
This whole ooxml nonsense is just a rather transparent ploy by the monopolist to keep a deathgrip on desktop document formats.
near sighted much? A single standard as the Open Source movement has proved is a way to stifle innovation. OOXML as written is a "standard" that could only be successfully implented by microsoft means that it is not a truly open standard and thusly falls short of the bar for what any reasonable person would consider an acceptable world standard. This does not mean that 2 standards would in the end be a bad thing.
> A single standard as the Open Source movement has proved is a way to stifle innovation.
This shows a serious misunderstanding of what a standard is.
Contrary to your statement, the open source movement has shown the importance of unencumbered standards. A standard is a blueprint, a reference, which provides a level playing ground for everyone to use when building a solution implementing said standard. Everyone can implement, and the vendors try to out-innovate each other to compete on the merits of their respective implementations.
Stop and think a minute about why the internet works. It's because it's built on open standards: tcp/ip, http, smtp, etc al - and any vendors who implement those standards can interoperate. The bad old way, the microsoft way, takes away open standards, and nobody can legally interoperate, except those allowed by microsoft.
The whole purpose of ODF was to guarantee a document specification which is complete and unencumbered, that may be legally implemented by any vendor, without having to make any sort of pact with microsoft.
ms ooxml throws a monkey wrench into that nice idea, since it has been shown to be incomplete and vague in key areas, such that it is impossible to know how to represent an ooxml document without secret microsoft specs. That is not where we want to go today.
You can bet your bottom dollar that ms will do everything they can to smother ODF by leveraging their bully pulpit, *especially* if ooxml is allowed to become another "standard".
This shows a serious misunderstanding of what a standard is.
Contrary to your statement, the open source movement has shown the importance of unencumbered standards. A standard is a blueprint, a reference, which provides a level playing ground for everyone to use when building a solution implementing said standard. Everyone can implement, and the vendors try to out-innovate each other to compete on the merits of their respective implementations.
Stop and think a minute about why the internet works. It's because it's built on open standards: tcp/ip, http, smtp, etc al - and any vendors who implement those standards can interoperate. The bad old way, the microsoft way, takes away open standards, and nobody can legally interoperate, except those allowed by microsoft.
The whole purpose of ODF was to guarantee a document specification which is complete and unencumbered, that may be legally implemented by any vendor, without having to make any sort of pact with microsoft.
ms ooxml throws a monkey wrench into that nice idea, since it has been shown to be incomplete and vague in key areas, such that it is impossible to know how to represent an ooxml document without secret microsoft specs. That is not where we want to go today.
You can bet your bottom dollar that ms will do everything they can to smother ODF by leveraging their bully pulpit, *especially* if ooxml is allowed to become another "standard".
read my post again please, we agree on every one of your points.
> read my post again please, we agree on every one of your points.
Actually, we do agree on several points, but we diverge radically on this one statement of yours:
"A single standard as the Open Source movement has proved is a way to stifle innovation"
I maintain that the open source movement has proved just the opposite, and that a single, unencumbered standard is key.
Actually, we do agree on several points, but we diverge radically on this one statement of yours:
"A single standard as the Open Source movement has proved is a way to stifle innovation"
I maintain that the open source movement has proved just the opposite, and that a single, unencumbered standard is key.
"unencumbered" is the real key. A 6000-page incomplete convoluted spec is not a spec, it's an act of aggression.
> it's an act of aggression.
A particularly apt observation.
A particularly apt observation.
Quoting:I do believe that OO.o should, and really will need to, take advantage of the small window of openness that OOXML has
Not going to happen. You can't support OOXML without a pact from Microsoft. Why do you think Novell and Xandros are putting OOXML in their own versions of OOo and not in OOo upstream? If it were possible to implement OOo without Microsoft support we would have seen OOXML support in OOo already.
Quoting:I do believe that OO.o should, and really will need to, take advantage of the small window of openness that OOXML has
Sander Not going to happen.
I believe what Traceyanne means is for OO.o to include/add what they legally can from OOXML spec that ODF doesn't have, so that MS doesn't have an excuse to say ODF doesn't have this or that. At the same time, it will make ODF more feature rich and capable of handling more types of data. I think this is a great idea and will happen any way as ODF evolves.
OOo doesn't have to wait for MS or their lackeys to do that and that is not a bad thing, is it?
"unencumbered" is the real key. A 6000-page incomplete convoluted spec is not a spec, it's an act of aggression.
totally agree - not to mention that it is mathematically incorrect.
we need one standard not two -
here's to hoping that all 6000 pages find the restrooms of the ISO so it can be properly used.
totally agree - not to mention that it is mathematically incorrect.
we need one standard not two -
here's to hoping that all 6000 pages find the restrooms of the ISO so it can be properly used.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post