Larry Seltzer wrote: > >>I have trouble seeing that as a bad thing. Perhaps a bit more such > evolutionary pressure and we won't see quite as much boneheaded reliance > on single-source undocumented proprietary formats. > > The 2007 formats are documented. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Office_Open_XML
After a fashion -- a rather MS-centric, MS-supplied fashion. In short, two of the three compelling reasons to NOT do things the way MS and ECMA are doing things still stand. "Office Open XML" is a joke of a "standard"... But so are lots of other ECMA (and similar) standards, where the process of following the process of drawing up a standard is far more important (in fact, almost the only issue of concenr to the standards' makers) than the bulk of the standards' makers actually having a flying fuck of an idea of what matters in the technical area they are purportedly "standardizing". Regards, Nick FitzGerald _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
