On Thu, 21 May 2009 12:43:23 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> Rob's argument is that the standard doesn't matter, only interoperability
> In other words, why is there even a standard? If a document isn't
> interoperable with OOo, then by rob's definition, it's not compliant.
> Since OOo is the primary ODF document generator, everything has to be
> compatible with OOo, regardless of whether or not OOo is compliant with the
> This is like saying that every web browser must be compliant with Internet
> Explorer, since it's the dominant browser, regardless of any standard.
Except for all the "features" of IE that are definitely *non*-standard :+)
The standard does matter, when there's an explicit specification; but
how can MS justify doing something utterly bizarre when the standard is
incomplete? The MS-supported "standard" has requirements along the line
of "this should be done as it's done by Excel-2007"; isn't that putting
interoperability above explicit standardization?