On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 08:19:37 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> Signs That Your "Open Standard" May Not Be Open Enough
You've really been on a FUD roll here Roy.
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| If OOXML is an open standard, why must Mac MS Office users wait so
>| long for OOXML support? Correct me if I am wrong, but MS Office on
>| the Mac is developed by Microsoft themselves, how is it that the
>| Windows Office development team had access to the OOXML specification
>| but the Mac Office team did not?
They did. They've been busy working on the next version of Office:mac,
with the next version due sometime next summer. We don't know why Legacy
OXML support was such a low priority for them, but just because they chose
not to implement legacy support in time has no bearing on how "open" the
format is.
>| Microsoft's ECMA submission comprised more than 6,000 pages. The
>| challenge of plowing through so much could drag out
>| approval by ISO. (ODF's submission was less than 700 pages.)
Possibly, but irrelevant. Volume is not an indicator of openness. If that
were true, GPL'd Java would not be able to be considered "open" by anyones
standards.
>| So, while Microsoft's own developers struggle to comprehend and
>| implement their own proposed "standard" file format, perhaps Mac
>| MS Office customers can use Novell OpenOffice for their Windows MS
>| Office compatibility needs.
Hardly. It's not expected that Office 2007 will have many users until
after legacy support is available for the mac. We're only talking a few
months here.
> It seems like Open XML is just the binary blob as an XML file dump. This
> seems to also be the case with Microsoft/Samba in the EU.
Not. Not at all.
|
|
