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. -- Joe Morris Registered Linux user 231871 running openSUSE 10.2 x86_64 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Pueblo Native wrote:

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.

It'll have more effect than doing nothing. Also, AIUI, there are significant implementation problems-- in that the standard MS proposes more or less says "the MS implementation is the definitive standard". Fine for MS. A problem for everyone else... essentially the same problem MS de facto "standards" usually cause. See http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20070117145745... (and http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20070206145620... and http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20070208121336... for updates) Also interesting: http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20070228191305... http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20070213060422... -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Op Friday 22 June 2007 00:53:18 schreef Pueblo Native:

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 it's better to have 2 different standards definitions for e.g. for speed km/h s miles/h - temperature celsius vs fahrenheit, lenght, like: 1 meter and 1 inch? Ask NASA about the latter. Didn't they loose a satelite because the mixed meters with inches or something like that. From this alone one can see that it is better to have 1 standard to be used by many applications. Now this gives total freedom to the customer. -- Richard Bos We are borrowing the world of our children, It is not inherited from our parents. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Am Freitag, 22. Juni 2007 11:30 schrieb john.janmaat@acadiau.ca:

If Microsoft is willing to commit to a standard, and therefore not change the format in which documents are saved without first getting ISO approval for the changes, great! Microsoft may get to claim to be the originator of the standard, but I expect it will not be able to change that standard quite so easily if it is ISO recognized. Remember that one of Microsoft's biggest advantages is that it develops its own standard and then continually changes it, thus making it difficult for people not using Microsoft products to share files, view media on the net, etc. With an established standard that Microsoft agrees to adhere to, everybody is, in the long run, better off. But only if this standart is open, and accessable for all - and that's one of my basic question, what does it mean if it becomes a standard? A standard that is only useable with microsoft products(and if you try reverse engeenierign you get sued for it) or is it a specification, which is "transparent" and can be implemented in any software I want(i.e. OOo).

In the first case I clearly gotta say no! In the second case, why not? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD4DBQFGe6UbcHwbW/zlOZoRAohCAJ4jc51iL+y+YFTnPRzVg5Z2cvN+ggCXeMTT IQwW2J4huBQs40Yfw9LoKA== =W/so -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Friday 2007-06-22 at 08:24 -0300, john.janmaat@acadiau.ca wrote:

...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

Please, trim your emails of extra unneded lines...

I guess I am implicitly assuming that if it is an ISO certified standard, it must be open.

Not necesarily. In many cases, you have got to pay, and not a little, in order to get a copy of an standard and use it (even patent fees). That may be reason enough for some companies not to adhere to them explicitly. It depends on the organization, I suppose. Some info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Organization_for_Standardization#... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standardization ... ] Standards can be de facto, which means they are followed for ] convenience, or de jure, which means they are used because of (more or ] less) legally binding contracts and documents. Government agencies often ] have to follow standards issued by official standardization ] organizations. Following such standards can also be a prerequisite for ] doing business on certain markets, with certain companies, or within ] certain consortia. ] ] A standard can be open or proprietary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard ] An Open standard is a standard that is publicly available and has ] various rights to use associated with it. ] ] The terms "open" and "standard" have a wide range of meanings associated ] with their usage. The term "open" is sometimes restricted to ] royalty-free technologies while the term "standard" is sometimes ] restricted to technologies approved by formalized committees that are ] open to participation by all interested parties and operate on a ] consensus basis. ] ] Some definitions of the term "open standard" permit patent holders to ] impose "reasonable and non-discriminatory" royalty fees and other ] licensing terms on implementers and/or users of the standard. For ] example, the rules for standards published by the major internationally ] recognized standards bodies such as the ITU, ISO, and IEC permit ] requiring patent licensing fees for implementation. However, the ] definitions of the European Union and Danish government forbid open ] standards to require fees for use. Permitting such license fees is ] controversial, because these tend to forbid implementation as free/open ] source software and discriminate against those who do not hold those ] patents. Many definitions of the term "open standard" specifically ] forbid any such fees. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFGe7oVtTMYHG2NR9URAnfeAJ42L+UFU3+aWytoq4f0RlPb6Ph8GgCfcUCj RwRA/ziMr1U7eggWecmjhT8= =VZWH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Richard Bos wrote:

Op Friday 22 June 2007 00:53:18 schreef Pueblo Native:

...

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 it's better to have 2 different standards definitions for e.g. for speed km/h s miles/h - temperature celsius vs fahrenheit, lenght, like: 1 meter and 1 inch? Ask NASA about the latter. Didn't they loose a satelite because the mixed meters with inches or something like that. From this alone one can see that it is better to have 1 standard to be used by many applications. Now this gives total freedom to the customer.

Don't forget that MS was on the ODF committee and was asked to participate. They declined. If they had participated they could have helped to ensure it included what they needed. Also, IIRC, XML is extensible, so if something is missing, it shouldn't be too hard to add it. -- Use OpenOffice.org http://www.openoffice.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org