> perhaps strict OOXML) which should (eventually) become strict OOXML. Now > I assume nobody has an issue with strict OOXML (which is, as I
It's not open, that's the problem. In the 4,000 page document that members of ISO somehow accepted, there's a lot of reference to proprietary stuff. See: http://ooxmlisdefectivebydesign.blogspot.com/ http://www.noooxml.org/ -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected] Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
