Conversion not the issue...
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| dinotrac Jun 14, 2007 4:34 AM EDT |
Rev - It is simpler to have a single standard, but it's also simpler to have one flavor of ice cream, one brand of toothpaste, and one model of car. The question is, how do you get a single standard? The old Soviet Union should have taught us a thing or two about relying on a group of qualified planners to divine the best choices for the rest of us. I would have no problem with Open XML if it were truly open. People could choose to use it or pass it by. Most importantly, though, is competing solutions could choose to reliably read it or write it, thus eliminating lock-in. To me, freedom is the real issue, not convenience. The problem with Open XML is that "open" doesn't go much further than its name. |
| dcparris Jun 14, 2007 6:24 AM EDT |
I wanted to address that and a couple of other issues, but realized I could soon find myself writing a whole new article. For example, this guy gave a fairly biased comment about ODF's roots. While it's one thing to develop a standard based on a given file format, it's quite another to target your 'open' standard at one format. We can easily argue that Microsoft has refused to develop their standards to account for ODF - the most widely-used standard outside of MS Word docs - something they claimed about us (despite the fact that MS Word reverse engineering experts were on hand for the development of ODF). |
| dinotrac Jun 14, 2007 6:32 AM EDT |
Rev - Microsoft certainly has dirty hands in this whole affair. They absolutely were on the ODF committee. They had every opportunity to ensure that ODF could work well for Office. I have no sympathy whatsoever. |
| tuxchick Jun 14, 2007 7:05 AM EDT |
dino, I think you're confusing standards with implementation. We have one electricity standard that supports thousands of devices, for one example. Where we have multiple standards it's messy, like our current half-baked Imperial + metric measurement systems. Which resulted in Fun Things like vehicles built with both metric and Imperial fasteners. Yes, I just love having to own two sets of tools for everything. :P Anyway microshaft are poopyheads, which trumps everything else. |
| bigg Jun 14, 2007 7:10 AM EDT |
> We have one electricity standard that supports thousands of devices, for one example. We do in the US, if you travel elsewhere it does become a problem. |
| dinotrac Jun 14, 2007 7:17 AM EDT |
>dino, I think you're confusing standards with implementation. Nope. You need to go back to your history books. We have one electricity standard because it turned out to be better than Edison's competing standard. >Anyway microshaft are poopyheads, which trumps everything else. Can't argue with that. In fact, it applies to Open XML, which is really just an open wrapper for closed "standards". |
| Abe Jun 14, 2007 8:43 AM EDT |
Quoting:I would have no problem with Open XML if it were truly open On a bigger picture, I would have no problem with multiple standards if they are truly open. That would give you the many flavors of ice cream and tooth paste. It will also give you more innovations and creativity. In the case of XML, there is no need for multiple ones, we don't need them since XML is eXtensible without limits. Practically speaking, XML allows you to have standards within standards. That is what MS is exactly using for their Open XML. But MS is being what it is. They have to have control, and they have to be different otherwise it can't be the abusive monopoly they want to be. |
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!