Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 00:44:43 GMT, yttrx wrote:
>
>> Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 23:25:17 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>
>>>> Open XML: Six thousand pages, one month, no chance...
>>>>
>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>>| Weary of cynicism, I've tried to believe that Microsoft's
>>>>| approach to international open document standards really does
>>>>| have the user in mind. I want to believe: there's enough
>>>>| nonsense to worry about without having to worry about
>>>>| gratuitously complex, changing, proprietary standards.
>>>>| If Microsoft agrees, as it says it does, and is genuinely
>>>>| on the road to taking that worry away, then by gum I'll
>>>>| be happy never to think about it again.
>>>>|
>>>>| [...]
>>>>|
>>>>| The answer is to game the system. As part of this, the company
>>>>| has created (by itself, unlike Open Doc) a proposal for OOXML
>>>>| that is six thousand pages long, and then put it into the
>>>>| fast-track approval system with very minimal time for
>>>>| discussion and objection.
>>>> `----
>>>>
>>>> http://community.zdnet.co.uk/blog/0,1000000567,10004805o-2000331777b,00.htm
>>>
>>> What I find absolutely hilarious is all the ODF supporters and their
>>> conspiracy theories about OOXML being 6000 pages on purpose, to make it
>>> impossible to implement.
>>>
>>> All this ignores the fact that when Microsoft submitted OOXML to Ecma it
>>> was only 1500 pages long, and the ECMA process, pushed by non-microsoft
>>> ECMA members pushed the standard out to 6000 pages.
>>>
>>> Funny nobody seems to remember that.
>>
>> Because it didnt actually happen that way. You're a liar, eric funkybreath.
>
> Then how exactly did it happen? Come on, be specific.
You're misrepresenting the facts, again, just like ballmer.
The ECMA process is of course moved along IN PART by non-microsoft ECMA members.
But it was Microsoft that responded to the process by adding 6000 pages. The
massive expansion was not the only way to move through that process, and
everyone involved knew it.
Seriously Eric, heres the deal. I know you know a little about the way
computers work, because your questions about PHP in other forums arent
altogether retarded. But you're a web-monkey and not much more. You dont
understand this stuff, and you're certainly mislead (or purposely misdirecting)
about operating systems in general, and windows and linux in specific.
But you're not nearly as bad as larry quailegg or flatfish. I'd put you
about on the level of the roys.
So take heart little web monkey.
-----yttrx
--
http://www.yttrx.net
|
|
