[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
Rob Beard wrote: > Hi folks, > > I found a link to this article from The Register comments... > > http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/microsofts-great-besmirching > > It's an interesting article about how the ISO look like they're going to > possibly approve Microsoft's OOXML 'standard' as an ISO standard. Tell > you what, if it goes through I'll have no faith in the ISO anymore. > > It suggests that we contact our MEP's, surely it can't hurt to try. > > Rob > Unfortunately the battle lines where drawn on the basis of pro / anti microsoft lobby, not on technical specification. To be fair to Microsoft they have put together a standard and they have gone through a (legal) process of pushing it through ISO. I cant say if any "incentives" have been offered to win hearts and minds, but if the ISO had been impartial it would have mentioned to microsoft that there was already and approved standard (ODF) and that perhaps they (Microsoft) could stop wasting everybody's time and implemented that in their Office Suite. Unfortunately OOXML while having open elements will also incorporate Microsoft FUD control mechanisms in its usual Borgish fashion. Adopt, Adapt, Agitate and Aggravate the standards bodies. Its being sold heavily in the .net mags as the next best thing despite having had this sort of technology in OpenOffice for well over 12 months. Perhaps we should individually write to the ISO and ask them what is the point of having two practically identical standards where one (already ratified) standard would do ! What is the Business case for duplicate interpreters, parsers and utilities need to handle the dual standards .... when one set is already free at source and proven in the market place ! Tom. -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html