High Plains Thumper <highplainsthumper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> High Plains Thumper on Thursday:
>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>>> High Plains Thumper espoused:
>>>>
>>>>> ODF is a true standard supported by a multitude. It
>>>>> puts all players on an even playing field, even
>>>>> Microsoft. :-)
>>>>
>>>> I agree; what you didn't mention is that OOXML is also
>>>> 6,000 pages long, which is about 5,900 pages too long for
>>>> any standard.
>>>
>>> Here is a good comparison (photo):
>>>
>>> http://blog.janik.cz/archives/2007/07/18/T18_02_54/
>>
>> See the one from Sam Hiser. It's on O'ReillyNet.
>
> I did not find the one you mention on O'ReillyNet. However, I found
> this article by Mr. Hiser:
High Plains Thumper : the COLA link shill. Do you ever post a (Correct)
opinion of your own? Saying "I agree" and then duplicating articles by
industry luminaries is so lame.
>
> http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2007/06/14/achieving-
> openness-a-closer-look-at-odf-and-ooxml.html
>
> or http://tinyurl.com/2xqy8d
>
> I found these particular points in favour of ODF:
>
> [quote]
> # ODF is developed and maintained in an open, multi-vendor,
> multi-stakeholder process that protects against control by a single
> organization. OOXML is less open in its development and maintenance,
> despite being submitted to a formal standards body, because control of
> the standard ultimately rests with one organization.
>
> # ODF is the only openly available standard, published fully in a
> document that is freely available and easy to comprehend. This
> openness is reflected in the number of competing applications in which
> ODF is already implemented. Unlike ODF, OOXML's complexity,
> extraordinary length, technical omissions, and single-vendor
> dependencies combine to make alternative implementation unattractive
> as well as legally and practically impossible.
> [/quote]
>
> This is counter to an open effort:
>
> [quote]
> Ecma International ("Ecma") Technical Committee 45 ("TC45"), which
> maintains OOXML, works in an opaque manner with its voting, balloting,
> and appeals policies not published. It is unclear if voting,
> balloting, or appeals processes are used in the development of OOXML,
> since the formats were pre-developed within Microsoft's Office
> software development group and Microsoft retains veto power over any
> ongoing changes that are proposed in TC45. Moreover, while there is an
> after-the-fact reporting by press release, the meeting activities of
> TC45, the committee's work-in-progress, documents, and e-mail are not
> public.
>
> Barriers to participation in the development of OOXML are many. Ecma
> membership requirements are limiting: individuals are not welcome to
> participate except by special invitation or through their corporate
> membership at Ecma. Only senior corporate members have the right to
> vote on a TC. The OOXML specification's over 6,000 pages were reviewed
> in less than a year by Ecma and were submitted to ISO in December 2006
> without a reference implementation in software.
> [/quote]
>
> This comment supports that observation:
>
> http://www.sutor.com/newsite/blog-open/?p=84
>
> [quote]
> Because open standards are by definition controlled by no single
> party, they facilitate interoperation among suppliers, partners,
> peers, and customers. Standards such as HTML, XML and TCP/IP maximize
> choice, minimize production costs and make competition work for
> customers of all kinds. In the long run, market forces work better,
> and vital records can be preserved forever — not just for two or three
> product cycles. This proposed standard assures none of these things.
> [/quote]
--
|
|
