On Mon, 21 Nov 2005, Chad Smith wrote: > On 11/21/05, John McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Just heard a rumour from a journalist reading an embargoed press release > > that Microsoft will announce an XML file format for Office which they > > will submit to ISO as an open-standard. The journalist claimed it would > > be announced at midnight CET. > > > > The monopolist is on the defensive. > > > > John > > > > This is a good thing, though, right? I mean, people have been saying that if > MS would only support ODF, everything would be just fine. So if MS comes up > with an XML-based truly Open Standard (approved by ISO), then OOo could use > it, MSO could use it, KOffice could use it, AbiWord could use it, > WordPerfect could use it, etc. etc. etc. - and all would open 100% right, as > long as the people making the software read and followed the ISO-approved > Open Standard. Is that a correct statement? So why would it matter if ODF or > MSO-OpenXML, (or whatever it will be called) gets approved by ISO? If it's > open, it's open, right? > > What could MS do that would make this a bad thing? That's what I'm trying to > get at.
They could keep the proprietary, secret "binary key" as part of their specification. Whether ISO would approve it with that key still intact is another question, but that would definitely put it in the category of "bad thing" for me. YMMV. > > - Chad Smith > http://www.gimpshop.net/ > Because everyone loves free software! > -- J. David Eisenberg http://catcode.com/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
