On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 09:04 +0200, Klaus Knopper wrote: > On Sun, Aug 26, 2007 at 11:05:50PM -0700, John Cherry wrote: > > Those of us at the Linux Foundation are working to reject Microsoft's > > bid to win ISO ratification for their DIS 29500 (OOXML) specification > > for office document file formats. The world already has an ISO standard > > for this problem and it's ODF or ISO 26300. The JTC1 5 month ballot > > period closes September 2nd. > > I'm sorry, "The world already has an ISO standard or this problem and > it's ODF" is not a good argument in my opinion. It sounds much like > "The world already has one operating system, and it is Windows". > Usually, we are all for diversity and open standards, aren't we? For > rejecting an application for standardization, there should be just > technical and verifyable formal reasons: > > - The proposed standard must be implementable by everyone. Insufficient > or vendor-specific documentation cannot be implemented by > anyone in full. > > - The proposed standard must be architecture- and operating-system > independent. > > - The proposed standard must not be obfuscated. > > - All components and interfaces must be openly disclosed and > documented in full, and not given as a "container" for proprietary > content. > > - The proposed standard must not contain patented/proprietary components. > > - Implementing the standard must be royalty-free. > > ... > > Have you read the OOXML documentation in order to make the above > statements, which would be very valid reasons for a rejection? > > > With September 2nd looming, the Linux Foundation is going to come out > > with a "formal" statement on Tuesday. I realize that there have been > > document format wars raging in the blogs and the press for months, but I > > thought it would be a nice touch to the LF position statement if we > > could augment the statement with comments from the community of desktop > > architects (you guys). > > > > I am constructing a "quotes page" for specific comments from the desktop > > architects. I will either pick these quotes up from the list here or > > you can send them to me directly. If you post a short position > > statement of your own, there is a possibility that we will use it in the > > LF position statement as well, so please don't send anything to me that > > you don't want to have quoted. All quotes on the "quotes page" must be > > attributed to somebody (nothing anonymous). > > You can quote the "-" indented statements from me above. But I would > really be happy if we all know what we are talking about. Just disliking > anything from a proprietary vendor is insufficient for a serious > statement.
Thanks for the quote Klaus. I agree that a simple argument about disliking anything from a proprietary vendor is not a reasonable grounds for a statement. Thanks for the thoughtful response. John > > With kind regards > -Klaus Knopper _______________________________________________ Desktop_architects mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop_architects
