Joe Morris (NTM) wrote:
Pueblo Native wrote:
While some of these points may have more or less merit to them, the first one is a no-starter: "There is *already a standard ISO26300 named Open Document Format (ODF)*: a dual standard adds cost to industry, government and citizens;"
Now, I use OO and love it, but I am not so arrogant as to assume that it is or should be the ONLY standard out there. Let a thousand flowers bloom and let the consumer decide what they want. As long as they have that power, I'm happy even if they choose Microsoft's OXML format.
So as I understand your comment, when it comes to a standard, we should all have our own? Or even worse, Microsoft should decide what can and cannot be in it? IMO, this OXML is Microsoft's attempt to circumvent the standard ODF as they cannot compete on a level playing field. IMHO, standards are no place for variety. Let applications compete for how well they support the standards, but with multiple targets, it only ensures no (or all) will be hit. I would rather adhere to one standard, and as its limits are exposed, to amend the one standard rather than have 100 so-called standards. Already signed the petition.
Yeah, and I'm sure presenting an internet petition to a standards body is going to have a whole lot of importance when ISO decides whether or not to accept Microsoft's standard. Why stop there? Why not present that petition to Microsoft. I'm sure that once Ballmer sees all those self-certifying "signatures" he's going to raise his hands in surrender and announce that Office will only be using Open Document Format. Technical specs aside, if Microsoft wants to push out its own standard, well and good. As long as consumers have the choice that's what it is about. Not if Microsoft wins or if OpenOffice wins. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org