On 2009-05-20, Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 May 2009 11:08:51 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/05/battle-for-odf-interoperability.html
>
> 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
> interoperable."
>
> 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?
--
Apple: Because a large harddrive is for power users.
|||
/ | \
|
|
