On Mon, November 21, 2005 14:14, Steven Shelton wrote: > Chad Smith wrote: > >>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. >> > > MS does not do truly open standards. Most likely, what MS is planning to > do is submit their existing XML as an "open standard" and then, in their > applications, utilize the "open standard" and then add proprietary > information to it when the application saves. That way, MS Office can > open everyone else's files reliably but nobody else can open MS Office > files reliably, even though they are "based on the open standard." It's > the same game they played with HTML standards. Nothing new. >
That would be precisely my concern. Don -- DC Parris http://matheteuo.org/ http://chaddb.sourceforge.net/ "Hey man, whatever pickles your file!" --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
