On 2009-05-22, Tim Smith <reply_in_group@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In article <slrnh1bu08.odj.jedi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> JEDIDIAH <jedi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > So you think it is better if everyone who decides to import old
>> > WordPerfect documents makes up their own names to mark that data?
>>
>> That's pretty much what you're doing right there.
>>
>> If you can't translate the data into some format that is completely
>> independent of a particular brand or version of product then you haven't
>> really defined anything. That behavior is still vague and open to
>> interpretation.
>
> There are things in old formats that neither OOXML nor ODF can
> represent. Yet some people do need to represent those things in ODF and
If an ODF application can't cope with a particular type of data, it
shouldn't hold out any pretense to that ability. No stupid hacks or tricks
are really appropriate.
If it can't be properly translated to ODF then it's no more appropriate
to try than attempting the same with a copy of Dark Knight on BluRay.
The fact that both "standards" have been perhaps poisoned to allow for
proprietary sorts of shenanigans doesn't really alter this.
> OOXML documents. Hence, both standards allow for application-defined
> tagging and attributes.
>
> It is beyond the scope of either standard to specify the interpretation
> of those.
>
--
"Microsoft looks at new ideas, they don't evaluate whether
the idea will move the industry forward, they ask, |||
'how will it help us sell more copies of Windows?'" / | \
-- Bill Gates
|
|
