-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> The point is that ODF is being held up as the better standard becuase
> it doesn't have legacy support, and my comment is that without legacy
> support ODF cannot hope to accurately represent the millions of
> documents out there, making OpenXML the far better specification for
> archival purposes.
No, because it's not really an open format when the specification
references the implementation of a closed format. Closed formats have
no place for archival purposes. This is little better than a XML file
containing something like this:
<MSOpenXML>
9BAB54AC1B62E1A17C357F4862A3613A94AF409BB93A436BE9EB2372
4C92CF2C2CA8F3760BCC953AEF7E2F57F46B073E89E6668AD9F79D28
015A404A81CBE800B6DD91C6AB9FA5111BB635038D43478A69EB0B92
98B8BAEAFD3DE7EB4629B02D6C85BF95A1E8E5A3072821AF6B08F89C
51FFAC8F2C62637D6E37D30AA947F688C2EB3C0FF4F10A0420FD82A6
B13EE8D6E5A8040901DA015617DE8CA23E80A0B401D52E70058BE39B
D8B350989D10DAF32579594AF795BF64A2796506EF19AEEE0C5E072D
177F8C64EF7DCCEF6A5E82AED709D1C040A3BF3584914F3668BA7D52
574ACE686F0896DD4FD45B9AFE055DCF713D51334488704AF56AFB20
8CBB5D92
</MSOpenXML>
That's just as opaque as stating that the implementation should mimic a
closed format, and will be just as unusable in 10-20 years.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFnjRfd1ZThqotgfgRAlHPAJ4wbdSAqKwP+KbZ4XtY5l6xDCKejQCbBb+d
tAsKmtvh9AArgXtcJcr5p+U=
=ZyZp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
PeKaJe
Question: Is it better to abide by the rules until they're changed or
help speed the change by breaking them?
|
|
