On 01/03/2008, Ciaran O'Riordan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The result, by Andy Updegrove: > > http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20080229055319727 > Sean Daly interviews Andy Updegrove > http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080229171250199 > I'm no ISO procedure expert, but my understanding is: after 5 days of > discussion, the voting members at ISO's Ballot Resolution Meeting decided > not to approve the OOXML specification. There simply wasn't enough time to > discuss the numerous problems and the numerous proposed solutions. The > final decision will be in 30 days time, but since the issues raised last > September are officially unresolved, rejection by ISO is almost certain.
Not quite - their job was to put lipstick on this plucked chicken. This didn't make it any more of a human than before, featherless biped or no. So it's not dead until it's actually got a stake through its heart. I have long theorised that this meeting was a red herring, and Microsoft will instead have been working on corrupting the national bodies that voted "no" or "abstain" - since the "yes" voters are fine. - d. _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
