On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 13:38:11 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> Can Other Vendors Implement Microsoft's Office Open XML?
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| This paper examines whether OOXML can be fully implemented by vendors other
>| than Microsoft and concludes that a number of application specific and
>| undisclosed behaviours (as well as a number of other technical flaws) in the
>| proposed standard make this impossible.
> `----
>
> http://holloway.co.nz/can-other-vendors-implement-ooxml.html?from=lxer.com
What crap. FUD masquerading as objective analysis.
One need only point out that they take quotes out of context, and hide
information to make their point. For example, when talking about the
legacy elements of OOXML, they quote part of the specification, but leave
out the most important part about the elements being deprecated.
Here's what they quote in the article:
"[t]o faithfully replicate this behavior, applications must imitate the
behavior of that application, which involves many possible behaviors and
cannot be faithfully placed into narrative for this Office Open XML
Standard. "
Here is the full paragraph:
"Guidance: To faithfully replicate this behavior, applications must imitate
the behavior of that application, which involves many possible behaviors
and cannot be faithfully placed into narrative for this Office Open XML
Standard. If applications wish to match this behavior, they must utilize
and duplicate the output of those applications. It is recommended that
applications not intentionally replicate this behavior as it was deprecated
due to issues with its output, and is maintained only for compatibility
with existing documents from that application. end guidance"
Now what possible reason would they have to "forget" to mention that the
elements are deprecated and shouldn't be implemented?
The only possible reason is bias, and to attempt to misdirect and
obfuscate. Including that portion would have weakened their argument, so
they dishonestly chose to exclude it and hope nobody checks up on them
(which, sadly, it seems almost nobody does).
They also criticize the Microsoft patent grant, specifically this language:
"[n]o other rights except those expressly stated in this promise
[respectively, covenant] shall be deemed granted, waived or received by
implication, or estoppel, or otherwise."
Yet they seem quite fine with Sun's patent grant which includes this
language:
"No other rights except those expressly stated in this Patent Statement
shall be deemed granted, waived, or received by implication, or estoppel,
or otherwise."
Gee, now why don't they criticize ODF for that reason?
What a crock.
|
|
