Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> Descriptions of Microsoft Office binary formats
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| These formats being available now rather removes the ?OOXML as documentation
>| of Microsoft legacy formats? argument for the need for OOXML. Of course, they
>| could have been made widely available before, but weren?t, for some reason.
>|
>| I utterly reject the need for OOXML as a standard because it is a description
>| of the Microsoft Office 2007 formats. OOXML was released from ECMA within a
>| month or so of Office 2007, so claiming any sort of ?legacy? for Office 2007
>| is ridiculous.
> `----
>
> http://www.sutor.com/newsite/blog-open/?p=2091
>
> Someone told me that Microsoft might already be moving on to ODF. Their
> so-called 'opening up' stunt does more harm than good to OOXML. It makes it
> redundant.
>
ISO already has ODF. There is no reason for a second standard to cover
exactly the same thing as the first one.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |
|
|
