On Sat, Jul 14, 2007 at 03:06:45PM -0400, Miguel de Icaza wrote: > > Fully irrelevant, since in one case it's mere workload, and in the other > > case it's double the workload + restricted information + mathmatical and > > date errors. > > We need to implement support for the date issue if we want to be able to > get folks to move to our office suite from MS Office anyways. > > As for the mathematical errors, those have been blown out of proportion: > > http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/archive/2007/07/12/spreadsheet-formula-bugs.aspx > > If you want to drown in a glass of water, go ahead, but they are minor > issues as outlined on the post above.
Ah, but you are so informed... do you know a YES vote WITH COMMENTS has no meaning of any kind of obligation at all? If it has to be corrected it has to be voted NO WITH COMMENTS. > > Unlike OOXML, CSS2 is fully royalty free, please compare apple with > > apples, instead of apples with oranges. > > The OSP is also royalty free, where did it say its not? Do you have > formal legal advise that the OSP is not enough, or is this a conjecture > from the blogosphere? Well, according to the OSP, the OSP does NOT cover the full breadth of OOXML specification. Do you consider http://www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/default.mspx the blogosphere, or is that just a negative remark towards all bloggers, including you? > > > > True standards can't rely on hidden information (with special agreements > > > > that need to be signed with Microsoft for certain parts of OOXML, > > > > as has been found in a document Microsoft was forced to disclose in > > > > Spain). > > > > > > Which information is this? There have been accusations made about > > > this hidden information, but they have turned out to be bogus. > > > > Really? > > > > What patents are involved? Can you list them for us since you seem to > > know? How does Microsoft's attitude towards patents compare with > > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/office/ipr.php ? > > We are not talking about Microsoft general attitudes, we are talking > about the specifics of this standard, and this standard is explicitly > listed in the Microsoft Open Specification Promise and has very precise > terms. Well, Microsoft's attitude has been to gear up in order to use their patent arsenal. Right now, there'se that Promise which has precise but lacking terms. > > MS Word 2000 Table Style Rules, can you point them out? > > I do not, but it is flagged on the standard as deprecated. You could > bring this up at the ISO meeting if you are really concerned about it. Oh, that's just *one* element of many which alone are a reason for NO WITH COMMENTS, since YES WITH COMMENTS is meaningless. And I'll be sure to table it at my countries ISO meeting. > > > The closest I have heard of were the OLE tags for embedding OLE objects, > > > and those are present in ODF as well. > > > > Funny to see you campaining for Microsoft's fake-standard, or are you > > "Miguel de Icaza" the slashdot troll? It's always hard to tell when you > > don't digitally sign messages... > > > > So I keep wondering. > > I would like to stick to the issues and stay away from ad-hominen > attacks. I didn't attack you, only that idiot troll who claims to be you. Unless this is not really you, I can't tell... why take it so personally? Because I called it fake-standard? Rui -- Wibble. Today is Setting Orange, the 49th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? _______________________________________________ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list