On 6 April 2010 12:59, Matthias Kirschner <[email protected]> wrote: > * David Gerard <[email protected]> [2010-04-06 11:52:21 +0100]: >> On 6 April 2010 10:36, Matthias Kirschner <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > Do you have five examples of widespread _standards_ which are not Open >> > Standards? >> Microsoft Word .DOC . So many people, places and businesses accept >> them by default and often refuse to accept anything else. It's only in >> the past few years that I've seen even computing recruiters accept >> PDF, for instance. > That's a nice example. In that case widespread standards are not > interoperability but monopoly. Indeed. However, as far as the users are concerned, they're interoperability. If this proposed document is to be heeded by users, the writer needs to keep in mind when the user uses a word to have a different meaning to the one the writer wants it to mean. Else the users will feel the writer has been deliberately duplicitous. - d. _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
