Pranesh Prakash wrote:
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 20:02, jtd<[email protected]> wrote:
Only an idiot will commit a folly of proposing and approving multiple
standards when there exists an opportunity of avoiding it.
That assumes that there are costs involved in multiple standards,
which is what I'm seeking to question (not necessarily to refute). My
question is mainly about concurrent usage of multiple open standards
when the costs incurred are questionable (i.e., it is highly unlikely
that there will come a situation where a program like OpenOffice.org
will stop supporting .txt files). Sometimes it is more convenient to
use .txt while at other times .odt is more convenient (at least at a
personal level, as I consider things like file size / support for
formatting / ease of opening for others, etc.). What would be the
arguments against such concurrent use?
We should compare Unix .txt and MS-DOS .txt standards for Text files.
Similarly, Open Document Format and Office Open XML for Office documents.
We all know why Office Open XML does not qualify as a standard and its
incompleteness makes it impossible to operate on their document format.
OpenOffice support for MS Office documents is a hack. It is far from
complete.
It does not make sense to promote multiple standards for same purpose.
--
Anand Babu Periasamy
GPG Key ID: 0x62E15A31
Blog [http://unlocksmith.org]
GlusterFS [http://www.gluster.org]
GNU/Linux [http://www.gnu.org]
_______________________________________________
network mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
