On 2008-02-22, Linonut <linonut@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> * Tom Shelton peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> On 2008-02-21, Linonut <linonut@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> Now what third-parties might do that? Sun? Sure, they could, but I
>>> don't think that's likely. Some other third-party? Sure, but I can
>>> generally avoid their stuff without suffering harm. Microsoft? Their
>>> stuff is the de facto standard, and they can put anything they like in
>>> it, but it is much more difficult to avoid it, and thus suffer the harm
>>> it causes (which may amount to nothing more than being unable to access
>>> the data without paying money to a firm I distrust.)
>>
>> I think that is sort of an irrelavant argument... Look, Roy keeps
>> banging on about the ability to add vendor specific binary content to
>> OOXML documents is a bad thing - totally ignoring the fact that you can
>> also do that in ODF. I also have noted that he never has directly
>> answered that very simple question... Why is it ok in ODF and not in
>> OOXML?
>
> I already said why -- Microsoft will leverage the binary content in
> their document formats to maintain their vendor lock-in.
>
Yet you want MS to adopt ODF as it's standard over OOXML? Seems
contradictory to me, if you think they would just use it to "corrupt"
the standard.
> Other vendors can indeed try to do that with the ODF format, but they
> are not de facto monopolies.
>
Seems contradictory to me.
--
Tom Shelton
|
|
