On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 06:56:56 +0900, High Plains Thumper wrote:
> Jim Richardson wrote:
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>> [H]omer on Sunday:
>>>>
>>>>> ODF Alliance hails record growth in application support
>>>>> for ODF
>>>>>
>>>>> .----
>>>>> In total, there are now more than two dozen
>>>>> ODF-supporting text, spreadsheet, and presentation
>>>>> applications announced in the past three months
>>>>> `----
>>>>> http://enterpriselinuxlog.blogs.techtarget.com/2007/10/26/odf-alliance-hails-record-growth-application-support-for-odf/
>>>>>
>>>>> How many support Oh-Oh-XML, I wonder?
>>>>
>>>> None. Microsoft Office 2007 implements something that
>>>> supports a derivative of OOXML. Remember: Microsoft has
>>>> admitted that it has no commitment to support OOXML, even
>>>> if it passes the ISO acid test. IOW, Microsoft can
>>>> continue to 'extend' and take its fully proprietary route,
>>>> even without this cloak called OOXML (which fool some
>>>> people that may no longer consider it proprietary). XML !=
>>>> Open.
>>>>
>>>> A lot more could be said...
>>>
>>> What complete and utter BS. Sun hasn't committed to
>>> supporting ODF either,
>>
>> How is it BS? Since you agree MS hasn't committed to
>> supporting ooXml...
>
> Sun hasn't committed to supporting ODF either? Erik is spouting
> his gobshite as usual:
>
> http://www.sun.com/software/star/openoffice/index.xml
I don't see anywhere in that link where Sun guarantees they will completely
conform to ODF, and continue to do so in perpetuity.
That's what ODF proponents are expecting from Microsoft. Why don't they
hold Sun to the same standard for ODF?
[irrelevant quote tha has nothing to do with a formal statement of
committment snipped]
>> Then there will never be a non-MS 100% implementation of OOXML
>> since MS maintains copyright on bits required by parts of it.
>> Hell, with that definition of yours, there will probably never
>> be a 100% implemention of OOXML even from MS.
>
> Again, Erik is spouting more gobshite. His argument is like .rtf
> files created by Microsoft Write (Wordpad) are not a 100% Word
> implementation, because it does not support 100% of Word's
> features. Issue is compatibility. One does not have to
> implement 100% of the standard to be compliant with the standard.
Bullshit. Roy is claiming that because an app doesn't support 100% of
OOXML then it doesn't count as an implementation, therefore, he claims,
there are 0 implementations (because office hasn't yet been patched to
match the changes that have occured during ECMA and ISO standardization)
|
|
