On 01/02/2011 10:46 AM, Lee Hyde wrote: > ---- SNIP ---- > > My understanding is that Microsoft intends to implement strict OOXML > gradually, with each successive release of Microsoft Office using an > increasingly 'strict' form of transitional OOXML. Assuming that I am > correct in this assumption, does it not make sense that Microsoft will > make each successive version of their transitional OOXML backwards > compatible with their last and that they will release updates or add-ons > to ensure forward compatibility for older products (Office 2007 and 2010). > I, personally, cannot make that presumption, based on previous experience with Microsoft. There is a dichotomy between what MS says and what it does. And an even wider one between what one might presume and what MS does. > ---- SNIP ---- > Now > I assume nobody has an issue with strict OOXML (which is, as I > understand it, an open standard) so why would you have an issue with > implementing by graduations (in line with Microsoft) strict OOXML via a > series of transitional specifications? > I'm concerned by what you mean by an open standard. To me, open means free to use and free to see. From what I understand of the OOXML ISO as it was passed there are a lot of MS add-ons that are proprietary, as well as a lot of binary blobs that are proprietary. Also a number of definitions that are so vague that they are, for all intents and purposed, unable to be implemented as written. Therefore, I can not look at OOXML as being and OPEN standard. Yes, it is a standard (to Microsoft's eternal shame). But OPEN it is NOT. > > Kind Regards, > > Lee Hyde. > ---- SNIP ----
Craig Tyche -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected] Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
