Not quite
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| sjm 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. |
| grouch 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!