On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 16:31:55 PM -0400, Twayne wrote: > Off base: Recommendation was, The Sender doing the accomodating is > exactly the opposite: Sending files in formats the other end CAN > read.
I had understood that very clearly, thank you. And I confirm that this is a bad habit, in this case. There is a decades-old principle in programming about this: "Be strict in what you send, but generous in what you receive" Sending out files in proprietary formats (whether it happens by email or publishing them on websites is irrelevant) is always bad period. It only perpetuates the huge cultural problems and huge wastes of money documented here: http://mfioretti.com/how-file-formats-can-be-used-favor-or-hamper-innovation-active-citizenship-and-really-free-markets (and if you continue to not bother to read references, please just leave this thread now, if you want to maintain some credibility) The fact that very often, today, there still is no viable alternative in many cases doesn't change the fact that sending out proprietary formats is bad. It's still an unavoidable, necessary evil, but evil it is. That's why I've been recommending for years that the only way to go is to demand mandatory usage of ODF by Public Administrations. I as a private citizen have very little power, but if it becomes a law that, at least in certain cases, closed formats can't be used, things will go much better, much more quickly. > Nonsense. When I communicate with more than one person it's much > better for ME to make the accomodations for THEM, period, in any > case I can imagine or have ever come across. I see. So if I now told you that I very much prefer to receive email encoded in EBCDIC format, you'd attach to each reply an EBCDIC version, right? That's smart, indeed. >From Merriam-Webster online: Communication... a process by which information is exchanged between individuals through a COMMON system of symbols, signs, or behavior In any field, the less (open, of course) formats and protocols there are, the more efficient communication becomes. > 1. A practical person wishing to keep good communications/ > relationships will never push a new program or new technology on any > other group. First of all, I did acknowledge from my first messages that there are many cases where one is still forced to be "practical", as you call it. I just added that in this case it's nothing to be happy about. I hope I don't have to repeat it anymore. Above all, I only spoke of file formats, not of programs or technology. If the difference isn't clear, maybe you shouldn't engage in certain conversations, not with this attitude anyway. > 2. Whoever told you the SUN ODF plug in will only work in the > "newest" version lied to you, you misunderstood them, or they > mis-spoke. that depends on how one defines "newest". I specifically mentioned that many correspondants of that officer are stuck for whatever reason to Office 97. > 3. I cannot help that your contacts are the "oldest" versions. I didn't say that _my_ contacts are the "oldest" version. Please read messages more carefully before replying. > YOU should be accommodating THEM and as a sidelight educating them > about the possibilities of OO.o, NOT trying to force it on them. I never force OO.o on anybody. Please read messages more carefully before replying. I want the _universal_ adoption of ODF, not OO.o. And if the difference isn't clear, maybe you shouldn't engage in certain conversations, not with this attitude anyway. Marco Fioretti http://mfioretti.com -- Your own civil rights and the quality of your life heavily depend on how software is used *around* you: http://digifreedom.net/node/84 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
