2009/5/8 M. Fioretti <[email protected]>: > On Fri, May 08, 2009 21:18:55 PM +0300, Dotan Cohen wrote: >> 2009/5/8 M. Fioretti <[email protected]>: > >> Exactly. I do not expect MS to code the ambiguous parts of ODF to be >> compatible with OOo. I expect them to make it different. > > and why users, especially governments, should ever allow this really > escapes me, sorry. >
Because they are already MSO users. You are starting in the middle, not the idealogical beginning. >> The difference is that DOC and such are binary formats, reverse >> engineered. > > technical differences like this, ie binary vs zipped containers of XML > files, simply don't matter. It's not this we're talking about, as I > already wrote. > This is important. MS cannot just change anything, only the ambiguous parts. >> > If the market leader gets to decide for everyone, or more exactly >> > if this principle remains acceptable in the specific field of file >> > formats, the market leader will continue to change its decisions >> > every >> > >> With the reasonable assumption that decisions won't be made to make >> ODF-spec parts non-spec, this is a non-issue as OOo would be >> ignoring those parts. > > I simply don't understand this last sentence, sorry. > It's rehashing what was already stated. Nevermind it. >> Then [ODF] should have been better defined. > > I have already answered to this in the article I quoted, so I won't > cut and paste that here. > Who reads TFA? (This is a slashdot meme, I'm not being rude!) >> > The whole point of ODF and open file formats and all the movement >> > behind is exactly to never allow anymore that market leadership >> > happens or is artificially maintained by tricks at the file format >> > level. >> But the format was ambiguous. Hopefully 1.2 will address those issues > > My understanding is that OOo and probably other applications have done > the only possible right thing, ie coding according to the ODF 1.2 > draft WHICH ALREADY EXISTS. The fact that MS didn't is the best proof > that it would be dead wrong to accept this trick of theirs. What > you're suggesting, unless I lost some step, is that: > ODF 1.2 is not yet released. > 1) OOo and everybody else should change what they've ALREADY done > (which is as futureproof as can be today), ie waste energies to run > after the false track laid by MS with this trick... > > 2) ...Until ODF1.2 passes ISO ratification, ie when everybody, > including Microsoft, to participate in government tenders, will > have to be conformant to ODF 1.2 > > 3) and restart again chasing the next category of MS moonbeams > > ...which means, apart from the waste of energies, make people produce > some other million non interoperable files that would lie around > creating problems. Am I missing something? > Yes, what we are all missing. An unambiguous FOSS document file format. -- Dotan Cohen http://what-is-what.com http://gibberish.co.il --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
