On Fri, 2006-03-17 at 16:30 -0500, Chad Smith wrote: > On 3/17/06, Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Saying "XML is XML" is stupid. > > > The point is - I doubt the difference will matter to Google's search. They > can already search docs - so I doubt searching has much to do with it.
If Google buys Sun and promotes OOo and SO I can't see them wanting MOOX to triumph over ODF. It would be like MS encouraging Apache on Linux at the expense of IIS on Windows. Yes they will allow .docs to still be searched but they will use the full power of XML to make ODF searches better providing a reason for ODF to be preferred over MOOX and MOOX isn't yet even available as a product yet. > There's not much of a point in discussing this anyway. Google hasn't said > they prefer ODF to DOC or MSOXML - we're just assuming they do. It seems a reasonable assumption since they bought Writely, contribute programming effort to OOo and appear to be possibly going to buy Sun. > That should read "a failure" - not total failure. What I mean is ODF is a > bad thing for MSO - not the total death of. MSO hasn't meant the complete death of WP. No-one is talking about extinction, just the breaking of the monopoly so there is more competition based on product quality rather than control of de facto standards. > I don't think there will be a > total death of MSO anytime soon. As long as there are desktops and office > suites - MSO will be around. As is WP and OOo, the relative market positions will change, and that is enough. > How long those two conditions last is up for > debate. > > Any thing that hinders, limits, or slows down MSO / MS is a good thing for > Google. And for OOo. QED -- Ian Lynch www.theINGOTs.org www.opendocumentfellowship.org www.schoolforge.org.uk --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
