Hi, I see the problem as another business advantage over other competitors if the OOXML is developed solely by one company. Implementation by other competing office products will be hard as well, and will not catch up to the latest OOXML just like the case of .NET stack and of course C#. If C# comes out with new things today, you can't use in other products so soon. Just like the case of Mono Project(which is not quite up to date yet). It's better for a few contributors of other companies(like Corel Office/Sun and others) to jointly developed the format instead. We need the format to be developed more openly instead, not only by one vendor. If not, Microsoft Office will always be the first product to have the standard implemented, and other office suite will stand little chance over that. Like the link I've posted, what if the files on top of OOXML are associated with the microsoft proprietary formats(e.g. case: ASP.NET/Windows Form/ADO.NET are not under the ECMA/ISO Standard) , do other companies need to pay license so as to implement the associated features? Is it really free and open? In the end, I see the same case happening. People and companies would be suggested to use only MS Office only.
Case: To use latest version of OOXML, I need to buy windows, and then the MS Office also. If I will to use Linux and OpenOffice.org, I would be lagging behind the standard, and also I can't open files people sent me that are saved in latest MS Office, till months or perhaps 1 or 2 years later. I see microsoft going for iso standards is a way of helping to gain recognition of its office product, now and future as I have said. It do not want to stick with ODF, as it would lose its office monopoly over it and also it cannot do what it wants with the format also. With OOXML it will be different case, it can do whatever it likes in the format while developing for the next product, while other office suite companies will likely to suffer once the standard is refreshed along with the launch of the new MS Office. Regards John On Sun, 2007-06-10 at 13:34 +0800, Harish Pillay wrote: > 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 _______________________________________________ Slugnet mailing list [email protected] http://www.lugs.org.sg/mailman/listinfo/slugnet
