On Sun, 2007-11-25 at 12:18 -0500, Jody Goldberg wrote: > On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 12:56:09PM +0000, jamie wrote: > > > > MOOX is most likely to become irrelevant IMO > Not agreed.
its debatable and subjective - yes. I reject the notion its a foregone conclusion that MS gets its way however > > > Firstly the de facto standard is doc, xls ... And that will not change > > for a long time > somewhat agreed. MS is not stupid. They learned the leason of > Office97 and will not be repeating it. This is why they released > MOOX support for older versions of office before 2007 came out. > The shiny new features in 2007 (more cols/rows, conditional regions) > are a means to draw people forward, but the old versions are not > locked out of the new files. well my office 2003 cannot read them > > > Office 2007 has less than 10% of all office versions (50m out of 500m) > Which is already comperable to the OO.o installbase. They are > playing with a much larger population. yes and that larger population is using older office versions so MS still has a lot of work to do to sell to them an expensive upgrade which mostly only contains a prettier interface I dont think anyone can say which way it will go > > > If companies will continue to use doc and xls formats for > > compatibilities sake then why is it so essential for us to implement > > support for it? > For the same reason that we release win32 builds. The > windows/office population is large enough that even a small > percentage represents alot of bodies. > > > Would it hurt so much to have a moratorium on MOOX dealings til after > > February next year when ISO standard is determined? > > > > Personally I would not want Gnome to touch it with a bargepole but I > > dont have a problem with spec improvement *after* February next year. > > That is precisely the situation we are in. There is no opportunity > to raise new issues after the BRM in Feb. Hence, there is no > involvement. but feb 2008 is for ISO standardisation - I thought you were working with ECMA on their spec? In any event I dont understand why the gnome foundation was pulled into this - cant you do your work with ECMA without foundation backing? jamie _______________________________________________ foundation-list mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list