Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> Searching for Openness in Microsoft's OOXML and Finding Contradictions
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | ...I learned this week that despite Microsoft's promises of a new
> | openness and its assertions regarding interoperability for its
> | OOXML (formerly known as OpenXML and also known as EOOXML) and
> | despite having offered it as a *standard*, it seems that it's
> | another case of promises, promises. From what I've been reading,
> | which I'll share with you, I think it's time to ask ourselves
> | some serious questions: does OOXML really qualify as a standard?
> | Or is it yet another monopoly-enabler in the guise of a standard?
> `----
>
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2007011720521698
It seems the specification is fraught with legalise, developed by lawyers
rather than software specification writers. These are indeed interesting
times.
--
HPT
|
|
