Home > Standards Blog

Advanced Search 

Welcome to ConsortiumInfo.org
Saturday, May 27 2017 @ 03:00 PM CDT

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
The Future of ODF and OOXML
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 30 2008 @ 06:06 AM CDT

This blog entry is totally biased in my opinion. Most of the bullet points look irrelevant to me since they keep recycling the concept that Microsoft is having a monopoly which is a bad thing. This very statement is debatable but overall I may agree with it, however I cannot figure out how the approval of OOXML as a standard will reinforce their monopoly. On the contrary, having a standard format - whatever it is - makes it much less dependable on a single software provider, don't you think?

Also, re: your point about the billions of billions of existing documents: as far as I know, most if not all these existing documents are using Office formats (doc, xls, etc). And as you admitted yourself, they can be opened and exchanged by many different applications including open source suites "a la Office". So, what is the point with them in relation to OOXML? They are some sort of "de facto" standard already. And the fact that Open Office or Star Office are able to read them does not constitute an obstacle to the adoption of another standard, nor does it represent an overwhelming criteria in favor of the adoption of ODF just because these applications support this format as well.

Finally, I find the point about the adoption and training costs of Open Office and Star Office compared to Office 2007 very specious. I won't argue on financial figures, but again I don't really see how it makes the debate on standard formats move forward. If you want to demonstrate that a specific application is better or cheaper than another, then you totally miss the whole point of why we need standard formats, that is to facilitate the exchange of information across as many applications as customers are willing to buy and support for whatever reason.

Jacques

[ # ]