On 2007-01-22, Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Nothing new. yet more proof that there's Microsoft astroturfing everywhere.
>
> From the above
>
> An interesting offer: get paid to contribute to Wikipedia
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| So I was a little surprised to receive email a couple of days ago
>| from Microsoft saying they wanted to contract someone independent
>| but friendly (me) for a couple of days to provide more balance on
>| Wikipedia concerning ODF/OOXML. I am hardly the poster boy of
>| Microsoft partisanship! Apparently they are frustrated at the
>| amount of spin from some ODF stakeholders on Wikipedia and blogs.
> `----
>
>
> You hear that? "Balance"? That's exactly the words which trolls in this
> newsgroups have been using.
>
> Busted. Another one for the inompelete list.
And here's the part Roy ignores:
I think I'll accept it: FUD enrages me and MS certainly are not
hiring me to add any pro-MS FUD, just to correct any errors I see.
If anyone sees any examples of incorrect statements on Wikipedia or
other similar forums in the next few weeks, please let me know:
whether anti-OOXML or anti-ODF. In fact, I already had added some
material to Wikipedia several months ago, so it is not something
new, so I'll spend a couple of days mythbusting and adding more
information.
Just scanning quickly the Wikipedia entry for OOXML, I see one
example straight away: The OOXML specification requires conforming
implementations to accept and understand various legacy office
applications . But the conformance section to the ISO standard
(which is only about page four) specifies conformance in terms of
being able to accept the grammar, use the standard semantics for the
bits you implement, and document where you do something different.
The bits you don't implement are no-one's business. So that
entry is simply wrong. The same myth comes up in the form "You
have to implement all 6000 pages or Microsoft will sue you." Are
we idiots?
|
|
