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
654737	2008-04-01 11:38:00	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. What Bletch said with the addition that MS have specifically excluded that from the specification (you can't by definition call it a standard) by including proprietary components, I might add; in direct contravention to what constitutes and defines a standard of any type which must be completely open and changeable by consensus (yes, standards are open and have been long, long, before the term Open Source was coined). The licence (it has a licence, teh heh!) states that you must comply fully with the standard [sic] but does not allow you to have the source in order to do that, or words to that effect. i.e. the only people who could ever implement all of the specification are, you guessed it, MS. However, not even MS has implemented this specification, nor are they likely to fully. In fact, what they have done is broken it themselves. I could go on, and on, and on, perhaps in the the light of day.	Murray P (44)
654738	2008-04-01 11:57:00	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 . Oh ***, get real . Try and look at the news and commentary objectively . Even you must see that the whole thing stinks to high heaven from the technical merits of the specification, the proprietary components, the licence to the corruption of the process and corruption of ISO as an organisation . These are technical flaws, and can be fixed . If MS does the dirty and changes stuff, just go back to ODF . Ah, now I see where you're coming from, you simply do not, or do not wish to, understand what a standard is, and further, I don't think you've realised yet that if they were implemented and administered in the way you suggest, well they wouldn't be standards would they . Think on this, why do they not have two recognised, but disparate, standards for the same thing (as would happen if OOXML is approved) . Hint: You plug your TV into a power point and it works instead of blowing up because there is one . . . . . . . . regulating the supply of electricity per nation and, if perchance you take your TV overseas you can still plug it in with an adaptor because international . . . . . . . . . regulate electricity supplies and interoperability worldwide . It's a very good word, interoperability, where . . . . . . . . . are concerned, in fact it's very necessary for them to be defined and used as l . . . . . . . . . . Once you've got that under your belt, we can delve in to why this battle over standards is so very important to MS and so very important to all standards, not just those in respect of software .	Murray P (44)
654739	2008-04-01 12:22:00	Oh ***, get real . Try and look at the news and commentary objectively . Even you must see that the whole thing stinks to high heaven from the technical merits of the specification, the proprietary components, the licence to the corruption of the process and corruption of ISO as an organisation . Stop being so dramatic . If there is dirt in MS' OOXML, people will see it and will vote with their feet . There is nothing stopping people going to ODF . Ah, now I see where you're coming from, you simply do not, or do not wish to, understand what a standard is, and further, I don't think you've realised yet that if they were implemented and administered in the way you suggest, well they wouldn't be standards would they . Stop being so dramatic . Play the ball, not the man . See above . Think on this, why do they not have two recognised, but disparate, standards for the same thing (as would happen if OOXML is approved) . Hint: You plug your TV into a power point and it works instead of blowing up because there is one . . . . . . . . regulating the supply of electricity per nation and, if perchance you take your TV overseas you can still plug it in with an adaptor because international . . . . . . . . . regulate electricity supplies and interoperability worldwide . It's a very good word, interoperability, where . . . . . . . . . are concerned, in fact it's very necessary for them to be defined and used as l . . . . . . . . . . Bad metaphor . OOXML is being considered because MS Office is the 1000-lb gorilla . Nothing else . Once you've got that under your belt, we can delve in to why this battle over standards is so very important to MS and so very important to all standards, not just those in respect of software . Calm down Murray . We still have our dearly beloved ODF . But darn it, I just wish I can open that Excel spreadsheet and that Word document exactly how it was written in my open source app . And so do millions of other people that are prevented from going to Linux etc because of it . Can you imagine how Linux would boom if people can open Office document properly in open source apps?	vinref (6194)
654740	2008-04-01 12:30:00	Can you describe a standard? I ask that because you talk about people voting with your feet as if it's something to do with free market economics or consumer power. It's not, not even remotely. Try again please, merely breaking a post down and trying to belittle the message via the poster is showing you up. However, I'm certain that you are more than capable of understanding the concept once you get to grips with and accept a few basic concepts. It's not hard.	Murray P (44)
654741	2008-04-01 12:30:00	OOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMM Does that help?	Murray P (44)
654742	2008-04-01 19:17:00	Stop being so dramatic . If there is dirt in MS' OOXML, people will see it and will vote with their feet . There is nothing stopping people going to ODF . There is - MS office doesn't open or save ODF out of the box . The result is that people will be saving in OOXML by default, because they don't know any better . The 'dirt' doesn't mean the format is unusable, it just means that nobody else can implement it in a way that's compatible with MS office . For the record, the current MS implementation doesn't even follow their so-called standard anyway . Stop being so dramatic . Play the ball, not the man . See above . He is playing the ball . The problem is that you are dodging the darn thing and leaving the field . Bad metaphor . It's not a metaphor, it's a real-life example of a standard that works, because it is properly and clearly defined . Until you can pick up the OOXML standard and implement something that is 100% compatible with the files MS office reads & writes, it's not a real standard . OOXML is being considered because MS Office is the 1000-lb gorilla . Nothing else . No, it's being considered because MS is pushing it, and because they refuse to support ODF . ODF is not hard to implement, if they did so OOXML would vanish overnight . They would never do this without being forced though, because it destroys their monopoly on office products . Calm down Murray . We still have our dearly beloved ODF . Which really doesn't mean much . If everyone is saving in OOXML, you still need OOXML support in whatever program you're using to open it . But darn it, I just wish I can open that Excel spreadsheet and that Word document exactly how it was written in my open source app . And so do millions of other people that are prevented from going to Linux etc because of it . Can you imagine how Linux would boom if people can open Office document properly in open source apps?You're missing the point . Until the OOXML standard is properly defined, and MS actually follows the standard, there isn't a hope in hell of this happening . The OSS developers will need to resort to reverse-engineering, as they did for the original . doc/xls/ppt etc formats . Note that 'properly defined' doesn't just mean being ratified as an ISO standard, particularly not when MS is using every underhanded tactic possible to drive it through . 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 . As an example: The Norwegian committee voted 18/2 against OOXML in the second round of voting . The '2' sent everyone else out of the room, and registered Norway's vote as a yes . The president of this committee has requested a formal investigation and asked that Norway's vote is discounted until the matter is cleared up . Big note here: they are trying to vote with their feet and leave the dirt well enough alone, MS just won't let them . Now tell me how that could possibly be an anti-MS conspiracy? Note that it's far from the only incident .	Erayd (23)
654743	2008-04-01 19:55:00	Good man Bletch. I wasn't going to bother replying to each point as they had been amply explained already with Vinref ignoring them for all he was worth, in effect all that was said was la la la la la la la la la al de da la la la la la la la la la la la' On the matter of voting irregularities: The EU standards authority is asking some hard questions of several countries standards committees. ISO has delayed the announcement of the vote count. Shades of Zimbabwe and Mugabe. Vinref still hasn't described, for the masses, what a standard is.	Murray P (44)
654744	2008-04-01 22:18:00	Thank god for the EU is all I can say. It seems they're the only people attempting to keep the playing field level, not vertical.	Thebananamonkey (7741)
654745	2008-04-02 01:45:00	They've really gone and done it now. (computerworld.co.nz) As reported by Computer World (credit to nofam (pressf1.pcworld.co.nz)). All I can say at this juncture is, blithering fools.	Murray P (44)
654746	2008-04-02 05:46:00	It may not last (I certainly hope it doesn't) as there was a fair bit of controversy over the vote. Norway has requested its vote be discounted pending investigation, and Germany has had similar issues, although it hasn't taken that step yet.	Erayd (23)
1 2 3 4 5 6