Jesper Lund Stocholm <jls2008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> Mark Kent <mark.kent@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> news:n1jia5-f9n.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>
>> Jesper Lund Stocholm <jls2008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>> Mark Kent <mark.kent@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>>> news:pu4ia5-ls.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>>
>> Of course there's a need - the point of OOXML is to be a standard. If
>> there is no common definition o fPII, then there is absolutely no way
>> of multiple implementations being remotely compatible.
>>
>> The examples you give illustrate this point rather well.
>>
>> You seem confused about the role of standards here...
>
> No I am not - I just don't see the point of this being in the standard. If
> you look at ODF there, "PII" is not mentioned at all. So I basically agree
> with you when you say it's a problem - I just say it's an insolvable
> problem.
Eh? If it's not defined, then either it should be defined, or it should
be removed from the standard. Any other option makes the standard
unimplementable, which means that the role of the standard is
undermined, ie., it's pointless because it can't be implemented.
>
> So basically you are screwed either way. With OOXML PII is not defined, so
> you don't have a list to look at for relevant elements and attributes. With
> ODF PII is not even mentioned, so your problem is that you don't have a
> well-defined concept to even start talking about it.
>
>
Not mentioning this in ODF is *correct* if it's not defined. ODF
probably doesn't mention my shoe size either, which is also correct.
Have you actually been involved in standards development before this
event, at all?
--
| 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 |
|
|
