On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:27:43 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> ____/ Mark Kent on Tuesday 11 March 2008 14:54 : \____
>
>> Jesper Lund Stocholm <jls2008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>> Mark Kent <mark.kent@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>>> news:pu4ia5-ls.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>>>
>>>> Jesper Lund Stocholm <jls2008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>
>>>>> "If this flag is set, the application warns the user any time the
>>>>> user performs do an action that will insert PII into the document.
>>>>> For example, inserting a comment might inserts the user's name."
>>>>
>>>> So presumably, somewhere else in the spec, is a definition of what PII
>>>> actually means?
>>>
>>> There is no need for a formal specification of Personally Identifiable
>>> Information. Also - it would be virtually impossible to make on since each
>>> implementation will have its different ways of using PII. One application
>>> could, as in the example, insert the person's name in comments/revisions
>>> thereby inserting PII in the document. Another application might not
>>> include this information. One application might implement custom fields
>>> which use the initials of the document creator - another application might
>>> not.
>>>
>>
>>
>> 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...
>
> A standard, as far as I know, should be either self-contained or
> self-sufficient through reuse (reference) to existing standards it builds
> upon. OOXML does none of this (almost). It's just a dump of Microsoft's way of
> doing things (legacy), e.g. encoing dates (which is buggy by the way) and many
> other inelegant things that only Microsoft understands. OOXML is derived from
> source code, not existing standards. It is a mockery to ISO, which isn't the
> same ISO that used to exist (the core fled in the face of Microsoft's sheer
> corruption -- a topic which I realise Jesper consistently escapes and avoids
> commenting on).
As far as you know. Uh huh. Never mind the fact that virtually every
"standard" in computers includes at least some "implementaiton defined"
features. Search the C and C++ standards, for instance, for what's
implemenation defined. There's a lot.
|
|
