Richard Bos wrote: > Op Friday 22 June 2007 00:53:18 schreef Pueblo Native: > >> While some of these points may have more or less merit to them, the >> first one is a no-starter: >> "There is *already a standard ISO26300 named Open Document Format >> (ODF)*: a dual standard adds cost to industry, government and citizens;" >> >> Now, I use OO and love it, but I am not so arrogant as to assume that it >> is or should be the ONLY standard out there. Let a thousand flowers >> bloom and let the consumer decide what they want. As long as they have >> that power, I'm happy even if they choose Microsoft's OXML format. >> > > So it's better to have 2 different standards definitions for e.g. for speed > km/h s miles/h - temperature celsius vs fahrenheit, lenght, like: 1 meter and > 1 inch? > Ask NASA about the latter. Didn't they loose a satelite because the mixed > meters with inches or something like that. > From this alone one can see that it is better to have 1 standard to be used > by > many applications. Now this gives total freedom to the customer. > > > Don't forget that MS was on the ODF committee and was asked to participate. They declined. If they had participated they could have helped to ensure it included what they needed. Also, IIRC, XML is extensible, so if something is missing, it shouldn't be too hard to add it.
-- Use OpenOffice.org <http://www.openoffice.org> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
