They just can't stop lying.
,----[ Quote ]
| Of course, Microsoft already knows all this, and no doubt that is why they
| are working so hard to urge NB's to vote "Approval, with comments" with
| promises that their comments will be addressed at the BRM, a BRM that might
| not even occur. In fact, if everyone listened to Microsoft and followed their
| advice then that would almost guarantee that no BRM would be held and no NB's
| comments would be adopted.
`----
http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/08/ooxml-brm.html
Office 2007 Vulnerability: Excel Stores Data Connection Password in Plain Text
,----[ Quote ]
| Bradley Mountford, a digital forensics expert, today discovered a security
| vulnerability in Microsoft Office Excel 2007 regarding login information of
| external data sources.
`----
http://www.joelevi.com/blog/index.php/2007/08/27/office-2007-vulnerability-excel-stores-data-connection-password-in-plain-text/
Related:
MSOOXML: Third Party Support - Apple iWork '08
,----[ Quote ]
| When Apple released iWork '08, the Microsoft bloggers immediately jumped in
| to comment on how this is proof that MSOOXML is easily implementable by third
| parties. First of all, we need to realise that Apple sits in the Technical
| Committee at Ecma which "developed" this so called standard. So we should not
| be surprised at all if they have support of this file format in their
| upcoming products including the iPhone.
|
| What is not said however, and I have been waiting for days for a response
| from Microsoft's Stephen McGibbon, is why Apple does NOT really support
| MSOOXML....
|
| And it gets more interesting. The Cybertech Rambler has taken some time out
| to review the file formats in iWork '08. ...He also confirms what the
| Microsofties refuse to confirm: "on closer reading of iWorks website and
| documentation, it appears that iWorks can only read OOXML file but cannot
| write it. That’s a pity."
`----
http://www.openmalaysiablog.com/2007/08/msooxml-third-p.html
Correcting false statements by Microsoft
,----[ Quote ]
| I think it is important to correct the false - or maybe misquoted -
| statements by Vijay Kapoor, national technology officer of Microsoft India
| that I found in this interview under the question "Why does Microsoft want
| another standard, what's the rationale?". Microsoft starts the reply
| with "There are at least 4 good reasons why:" and then states the first
| reason.
|
| [...]
|
| Thus, all in all, the arguments provided by Microsoft in the interview don't
| seem to be valid.
`----
http://blogs.sun.com/dancer/entry/correcting_false_statements_by_microsoft
Microsoft cannot resolve OOXML JTC1 ballot comments
,----[ Quote ]
| Unless, of course, Microsoft = OOXML as far as ECMA is concerned. If this is
| the case, I would like to hear this from ECMA because it would simplify
| matters.
`----
http://www.sutor.com/newsite/blog-open/?p=1807
Related:
[OOXML:] e to the power of hype
,----[ Quote ]
| Exponential growth is quite a claim. But what is the evidence? Microsoft
| provides this chart further down on the page, showing the growth in
| their "community":
`----
http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/08/e-to-power-of-hype.html
No is no, to OOXML
,----[ Quote ]
| I’ve heard several reports of supporters of OOXML trying to get national
| standards bodies to change their votes from “NO with comments” to “YES with
| comments” because “it’s the same thing.” The logic, which I’ll explain in a
| later post, is that any comments will trigger a ballot resolution meeting, so
| there is no need to be so negative and vote NO.
`----
http://www.sutor.com/newsite/blog-open/?p=1762
|
|
