Dotan Cohen wrote: > > Yes, what we are all missing. An unambiguous FOSS document file format. >
hmm .. sorry for jumping in to this thread. Have been following the ambiguity in ODF 1.0 and 1.1 and how MSO exploited to do their own "extending". I think what others are trying to argue about is, if I may put this succinctly, that MSO had an option either to use the unspecified parts of the standard to play nice with other applications or not. It chose the latter. Had it followed the standard in *good cooperative faith*, it would have tried to be compatible with other applications. Heck, had it *wanted* to play nice, it might have just used the draft 1.2 as others are doing. But it didn't. In fact, this is a very good situation to demonstrate that without being forced to, either economically or otherwise, MSO is always going to make choices to break stuff. I think it did the same thing to HTML. It is always going to exploit to poison the standard. Hence a very good motivation to be thorough in ODF 1.2. -- Please reply to this list only. I read this list on its corresponding newsgroup on gmane.org. Replies sent to my email address are just filtered to a folder in my mailbox and get periodically deleted without ever having been read. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
