__/ [ nessuno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ] on Sunday 09 July 2006 08:52 \__
> Quote:
> ----------------
> This is clearly inferior to the OpenDocument Foundation plug-in for
> Word, which elegantly adds ODF as another, peer file format so you can
> open, save and work with files in a natural way. Microsoft has
> architected this to make ODF as hard to work with as possible -
> imported files are read-only, there's no export function until late
> this year at the earliest, and you can't set ODF as the default file
> format. Nonetheless, it does mean that those who have to stick with
> Microsoft's product for whatever reason (such as having an
> accessibility device that's dependent on proprietary internals of
> Office and thus won't work with anything else) are able to join in with
> ISO26300-based workflows.
> -----------------
> End quote
>
> http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/webmink?entry=kicking_and_screaming
I read that blog item last night. It is amazing how the truth (and nothing
*but* the truth) (re-)surfaces only after many praises from all across the
globe (Sun Microsystem included). The initial hype is displaced owing to
justified criticism (Vaughan and PJ were among the first to spot this).
There is a degree of deceit in all of this. In another thread, involving Jim
and Gruff, it is made apparent that the Open Source projects (several of
them exist), which implement an ODF plug for Office, were sooner or later
bound to penetrate the core (demand likely to be a catalyst), even as a
third-party plug. Microsoft is taking preventive measures to ensure nobody
else has control over ODF support in its product/s. It suppresses the
alternation and use of the code as it selects an Open Source licence that is
intentionally too restrictive.
In conclusion, it is yet another case where Microsoft takes control of
something that was bound to enter its platform. Think the Internet and
Netscape, for example.
|
|
