-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
____/ JEDIDIAH on Thursday 21 May 2009 01:27 : \____
> On 2009-05-20, Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 May 2009 11:08:51 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> Wow. All i can say is that Rob is in serious Spin mode.
>> Try this. When someone points out that Neither OOo or Symphony produce
>> valid ODF files. Rob says.. wait for it.. That being valid doesn't matter.
> Or you could just consider ALL of the data and not just that little
> bit that suits your particular agenda.
> Symphony and OO are interoperable.
> MSO is interoperable with neither.
>> "@Andre, by all means implementations should be outputting valid ODF XML.
>> But this isn't a pre-req for interoperability, nor an excuse for not being
>> In other words, in Rob's feeble attempt to spin, he says that Microsoft is
>> at fault for not being interoperable, even if OOo and Symphony documents
>> aren't valid ODF.
>> How can you guys seriously support this?
> The goal of this sort of standard is interoperability, not beaurocratic
> conformance. Again we have slavish dedication to some sort of "ideal" while
> ignoring the practical objective that everyone is trying to accomplish.
> Does it work?
> Does it work better now than before?
You realise you talk to Microsoft liars and spinners, right? They, like their
masters, would use the same disingenuous tactics of "smiling while they pull
the trigger" (on ODF) and use software BUGS to claims interoperability does
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Did anyone see my lost carrier?"
http://Schestowitz.com | Mandriva Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
run-level 5 Mar 4 13:53 last=S
http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----