| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 88555 | 2008-03-31 21:20:00 | OOXML & ISO. | Murray P (44) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 654727 | 2008-04-01 06:25:00 | Which statement and, no. | Murray P (44) | ||
| 654728 | 2008-04-01 06:31:00 | The quote about stupidity. "Youth ages, immaturity is outgrown, ignorance can be educated, and drunkenness sobered, but STUPID lasts forever." |
Erayd (23) | ||
| 654729 | 2008-04-01 06:41:00 | Ahh hah! I must have got it from my extensive reading of Aristophanes. Having a penchant for comedy and being a dab hand myself, I have all his works in the Attic. | Murray P (44) | ||
| 654730 | 2008-04-01 08:11:00 | I popped over here to check out the comments regarding the International Standards voting shenanigans on OOXML . . . . . nothing! I guess nobody over here understands the implications of what's been going on over the past few months and in particular the last week and few days . Or perhaps you don't really care, which really equates to not understanding, because if you did you would care or, horror of horrors (pass the tin foil), you've been corrupted too . So perhaps I can jolt you from your ignorance/torpor/corruption, what do the boys & girls of PF1 think? Are you happy that a standard may be implemented by way of what appears to be shady dealings and vote rigging? (BTW, NZ voted against) . What do you think of OOXML as a standard when, given that it has been well documented that it is actually a specification and a badly broken one at that and, you or I or a software developer won't actually be able to work with or implement the 'standard' in its entirety because of the built in restrictions? Following on from the above, do you understand what a standard is, what it is for and, do you think having two standards for essentially the same thing is a good idea? (ODF is the incumbent standard, it can be used by everybody including the authors and submitters of OOXML . ISO's own rules state that there must be only one standard per strain of task) . Let them standardise OOXML . MS will then provide open compatibility definitions . Then you can use OO . org/Abiword/other open source apps to use, modify and write MS documents and data files . |
vinref (6194) | ||
| 654731 | 2008-04-01 08:59:00 | Let them standardise OOXML. MS will then provide open compatibility definitions. Then you can use OO.org/Abiword/other open source apps to use, modify and write MS documents and data files.If you seriously believe that, then you haven't read either the standard or the abundant commentary on the standard. There are many areas not clearly defined, and many more than MS is allowed to alter at will as an 'amendment' to the standard without having to go through the approval process again. The areas where precise format and behavior are ambiguous occur so frequently that MS can more or less do what they like, still adhere to the standard, and still require everybody else to reverse-engineer the damn thing. Remember that MS is a company hell-bent on maintaining its monopoly at all costs. Noting the incredibly corrupt practices they have used to ram this thing through ISO, do you really think they'd even hesitate to block the competition by every means possible? |
Erayd (23) | ||
| 654732 | 2008-04-01 09:07:00 | I did follow a link from LinuxToday.com yesterday (:)) about how MS had protested about some vote regarding this issue and the chairperson promptly offered her resignation which luckily was not accepted. It does appear that MS would like to "influence" the vote (predictable). By all reports (and I haven't reviewed the technical specifications of either format), OOXML is rather technically flawed. |
dolby digital (5073) | ||
| 654733 | 2008-04-01 09:11:00 | Remember that MS is a company hell-bent on maintaining its monopoly at all costs. Noting the incredibly corrupt practices they have used to ram this thing through ISO, do you really think they'd even hesitate to block the competition by every means possible? Shall we buy Microsoft and then let Windows wilt :D |
dolby digital (5073) | ||
| 654734 | 2008-04-01 09:44:00 | OOXML would be better reserved as a dress size for the lady who sings just before it gets quiet. MS' principles would be better reserved as a toilet tissue lubricant. |
R2x1 (4628) | ||
| 654735 | 2008-04-01 11:25:00 | If you seriously believe that, then you haven't read either the standard or the abundant commentary on the standard . There are many areas not clearly defined, and many more than MS is allowed to alter at will as an 'amendment' to the standard without having to go through the approval process again . The areas where precise format and behavior are ambiguous occur so frequently that MS can more or less do what they like, still adhere to the standard, and still require everybody else to reverse-engineer the damn thing . I have read enough to get tired of the politics and the anti-MS conspiracies . It has all the familiar MS/anti-MS players and I feel these are leading the debate by the nose . You would do well to watch out for them . ODF is used by a (very tiny) minority of people, and it is going nowhere against MS Office . That is the inescapable reality . If MS releases the specs of all their past Office products, open source projects would benefit tremendously . This is what I would like to see . If MS does the dirty and changes stuff, then what the hell, just go back to ODF . They would be no worse off than now . No one would be in any way compelled to use OOXML . |
vinref (6194) | ||
| 654736 | 2008-04-01 11:25:00 | By all reports (and I haven't reviewed the technical specifications of either format), OOXML is rather technically flawed. These are technical flaws, and can be fixed. |
vinref (6194) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 | |||||