____/ alt on Friday 31 August 2007 03:56 : \____
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 02:12:43 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> There's a lot more to this:
>>
>> * OOXML already has 'extensions'.
>>
>> * MSO07 does not implement OOXML.
>>
>> * OOXML is incomplete in that respect.
>>
>> * Binary enclosures (in line) are part of the spec.
>>
>> * OOXML is Windows-only (unless you backward engineer Windows under your
>> O/S of
>> choice).
>>
>> There is more to be said here, but it's a case of repeating old fact that
>> Microsoft is hiding.
>
> Oh. I'm quite aware that this certification is nothing but a way for
> Microsoft to have their closed protocols certified as an open standard.
> Anyone who has done their research into not only the standard, but also
> Microsoft's past bad behaviour (which resulted in them becoming a
> convicted monopolist) knows that this is a sham.
>
> And the ISO is in serious danger of becoming a defunct standards
> organization by allowing this to happen.
Sweden's vote has just been retracted because of the
abuse/bribery/crime/whatever you wish to call it. Let's hope that some other
countries will get their act together and nullify the votes as well. Either
way, history (in the news) will show that some very 'funny business' was part
of the route to ISO certification. I reserve the right to say that OOXML is
not an ISO standard no matter what...
Or...
The right to say that ISO means nothing because it's a coin-in-the-slot
standards body, just like Ecma. This would hurt other businesses that already
have (and boast about) ISO credentials.
--
~~ Best of wishes
Previously-unsurpassed exposure makes carnation-faced men
http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
07:20:02 up 24 days, 10:13, 5 users, load average: 3.25, 2.51, 2.06
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
|
|
