On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 19:20:52 -0800, Tim Smith wrote:
> In article <fotjafitkxbo.dlg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> The funny thing is, if ODF had received 1/10th of the scrutiny that
>> OOXML has received, it would be a far better format.
>
> And the sad thing is, it would be possible to come up with a format that
> is pretty close to ODF, but that has the legacy support Microsoft needs,
> and many in OASIS wanted to do that, and Microsoft likely would have
> supported it, but Sun wouldn't allow it.
>
> We could have one format that would have truly become universal. Oh
> well, I forgot--choice is good, so I guess it is supposed to be good
> that people will have to deal with two formats for the foreseeable
> future.
Why should the document format support all of Microsoft's (undocumented)
legacy crap? Shouldn't that be the job of the application?
|
|
