Home > Standards Blog

Advanced Search 

Welcome to ConsortiumInfo.org
Wednesday, October 01 2014 @ 09:35 PM CDT

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Return to original subject: The Nuclear Option
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 03 2007 @ 11:33 PM CDT
> I wanted you to tell us that OOXML describes the output of Office 2007 in enough detail to read and write all of it.

I think you are confusing OOXML, the markup language that Office 2007 produces, with DIS 29500, the document that describes it (and which, once it becomes a standard, becomes an independent source of specification).

ODF and OOXML allow OLE but don't describe OLE; ODF and OOXML allow scripts but don't describe the scripting languages; ODF and OOXML allow extensions (with slightly different mechanisms) but don't describe the extensions; ODF and OOXML allow any media type but don't describe the media types.  Both limit themselves to a describing a ZIP mechanism (which prevents direct use of XSLT in both cases, by the way!)  and the XML parts of the language .   If you were remotely concerned with consistency, and you felt these were bad features, you would be jumping up and down about ODF too, it seems to me.

The only difference that I see relates to where there are no platform-independent conventions for a feature: ODF tends to create something (e.g. to say "Use PNG for thumbnails" even though this is utterly tokenistic because the platforms need to be altered to use them:  I understand KDE does but obvious Mac and Windows don't), while DIS29500 typically doesn't specify a behaviour but allows different platforms to add their own thing (e.g. printer drivers).  Both seem legitimate approaches.

As for Brian Jones not answering your questions, Winter, it probably is because you are, if not actually a troll, then indistinguishable from one. For example, when I wrote that I spoke at some MS seminars, you then raise one of them as if this was proof of something other than what I had just said. For goodness sake, don't you think this kind of tactic is not obvious and a waste of time? Here is what answering your writing is like: you say "A", then someone (me) says "no because B", then you say "Oh, but "C", then someone (me) says "no because D" then you say "Oh but A". At this stage, we give up, but that is the point isn't it: to maintain this mantra of disinformation?  For example, continuing to repeat the slur about Portugal when it is so clearly not a scandal and you know it., or repeating the slur about Sweden when you know that it is an just example of a mistake being handled the right way. The recent ISO general meeting looked into all the allegations (I was told, no minutes still) and found that the NBs had conducted themselves entirely properly from all accounts.

Cheers
Rick Jelliffe
[ Parent | # ]