| 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 | ||
| 654767 | 2008-04-06 22:42:00 | Hey, be nice. Bletch, with all due respect, it's exactly what he's been doing, all I doing is pointing it out. And as for agreeing to disagree, well I think that is somewhat of a cop-out when someone is patently wrong and that same person avoids the question that would force them to admit their falsity. Whether it is or not, it smacks of insincerity, or rather, drags the debate to their level of insincerity. Anywho: This is very important s**t (imgs.xkcd.com) |
Murray P (44) | ||
| 654768 | 2008-04-06 23:23:00 | What have MS really gained? A cynic might say that they can't lose . On the one hand they have torpedoed the standards process and the bodies that regulate them and created doubt as to the veracity of standards, thus creating a situation where peoples confidence in standards is diminished to the point that similar existing standards are rendered impotent . They can then carry on as usual as a de facto standard . On the other hand, if perchance the damage is not so great and the standards survive, they have a, "Open" standard that they can trumpet to to the public and governments, albeit one they or no one else will ever comply with, the ability to market a compliant Office will continue to bring the money in . Just to make something clear, this standards process has been undertaken under the ISO's Fast Track process . The fast track process is usually reserved for the ratification as standards of well known specifications that are relatively simple and have been out there for many years, i . e . tried and tested . As far as I'm aware, this is the first time something so new and so complex has been approved for fast track and, as far as I know, the approval of this fast track is at variance with ISO's own rules . In respect of OOXML, a massive highly complex document, under the fast track there is (and has been) little chance for input or change to the standard . If it had been undertaken via the usual process, then yes, the standard would have been published as a draft or provisional specification (or some such), a work in progress that would be ratified once the wrinkles had been ironed out . This we now have a standard which for all intents and purposes will not be changed to any great extent and if it is, why is it going to be a standard, you know, something that is standard, something you can rely on not to change at a whim or because there are major faults . Imagine having such a standard for AS9110 Quality Requirements for Aircraft Maintenance & Repair Organizations . Using the some of the logic posted here and elsewhere; "it's ok, the bugs will be ironed out in practical terms as we go along in the real world" erm, programme crash anyone . or, It's good to have competition in standards, it gives consumers the choice" ahh, please can I book my flight on an aircraft that has been maintained under xyz standard please, I wasn't too happy with the abc standard maintained aircraft I flew on last time, it crashed, lucky I survived, many didn't . Those scenarios aren't too far fetched when you consider that the OOXML standard may be used to produce documents in many different languages relating to laws, rules of conduct and safety standards . |
Murray P (44) | ||
| 654769 | 2008-04-07 00:18:00 | Bletch, with all due respect, it's exactly what he's been doing, all I doing is pointing it out. There's a difference between pointing something out and taunting. Anywho: This is very important s**t (imgs.xkcd.com)I love that cartoon :D :thumbs: |
Erayd (23) | ||
| 654770 | 2008-04-07 11:54:00 | Sorry, I just got bored with trying to hammer it in without breaking his skull. Besides, he started it with his "calm" taunts. nnyah nnyah nnyah! :) So, do you really think the question will be answered? |
Murray P (44) | ||
| 654771 | 2008-04-07 12:06:00 | I don't think it needs answering, you made your point a long time ago. | Erayd (23) | ||
| 654772 | 2008-04-20 11:28:00 | An intersting Groklaw link (www.groklaw.net) in regards of the Norway vote and the French RGI | mikebartnz (21) | ||
| 654773 | 2008-04-20 12:11:00 | Cheers for that Mike - a rather interesting read :thumbs:. | Erayd (23) | ||
| 654774 | 2008-04-21 11:31:00 | I refuse to say that anyone was bribed. I may or may not think they were, but I didn't say it. (Of course it could all be down to poor toilet training and excess hallucinogenics.) |
R2x1 (4628) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 | |||||