John -
I hope this link helped in understanding the potential problems also. http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/node/2110
Thanks for this. There are numerous sources of information on this and we can start from the ODF Alliance (www.odfalliance.com). See also [1] from the British, and not forgetting GrokDoc [1] (via GrokLaw[3]). I had mentioned what was done by MS on the closing stages of the 30-day contradictory period in my blog[4]. Assume similar but perhaps more subtle tactics. In April the ITSC received a letter "in support of OOXML". The contents of that letter was 95% verbatim from what is available at [5], [6], [7] and [8]. I am not including the letter received by the ITSC here because I am not sure if I can. But take it from me that except for the details such as the company name, signatore, phone number, the text is identical. We cannot let MS bulldoze their way through. I personally think it is ridiculous to have two document standards, but to be fair, I am willing to accept their stuff provided every bit in their proposed standard is published and open (it is not as it stands today). Harish [1]http://www.xmlopen.org/ooxml-wiki/index.php/DIS_29500_Comments [2]http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/Main_Page [3]http://www.groklaw.net/ [4]http://harishpillay.livejournal.com/2007/02/05/ [5] http://www.incits.org/DIS29500/in070274.htm [6] http://www.incits.org/DIS29500/in070360.htm [7] http://www.incits.org/DIS29500/in070347.htm [8] http://www.incits.org/DIS29500/in070273.pdf _______________________________________________ Slugnet mailing list [email protected] http://www.lugs.org.sg/mailman/listinfo/slugnet
