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.
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.
--
Jesper Lund Stocholm
http://idippedut.dk
|
|
