On Sat, 2006-07-08 at 12:00 +0100, John McCreesh wrote: > On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 19:47 +0100, Ian Lynch wrote: > > [snip...] From > > what I can ascertain, the plug-in design is technically sound so far. > > Its open source so if anyone deliberately breaks or compromises > > something it can be seen and fixed. If it doesn't make export and import > > better than the current .doc filters in OOo it probably won't get used > > much. If it makes such data transfer more reliable then it must have > > some advantage to OOo or why would Sun be spending engineering time on > > improving the filters? > > I think it's more commercially sound than technically sound.
The technically sound bit is from Alex Hudson whose technical knowledge on XML I trust. I have no doubt that anything MS does will have a commercial strategy that has been thought through. (Unlike it seems Corel ;-) ) > Microsoft was facing two risks on the converter front: > > * it is just possible that enough free software folks might have > overcome their visceral revulsion of all things Microsoft to form an > open-source converter project I believe the Open Document Foundation have something. Maybe just the announcement of the possibility was enough, eho knows ;-) > * I had heard rumours that a number of commercial software houses were > working on / had proposals for commercial converters Again not too surprising and if these others go ahead it provides competition increasing the likelihood of a good product. > Both of these would mean loss of control for Microsoft, and the chance > that they might produce high-quality converters (which Microsoft has > stated are not technically possible) They could of course do this anyway. Anyone could form MS's open source project once most of the work has been done. > By *providing official support and funding* for an *open-source* > project, Microsoft has guaranteed that no commercial company will try > and compete; and has made it highly unlikely that any independent free > software project will emerge. On the contrary, I think it guarantees that groups like the Open Document Fellowship that have the technical expertise will expose any deliberately shoddy work and in extremis will fix problems. This is a gift to anyone who has expertise but not the full resources to do the whole job. What is to stop the Open Document Foundation or Open Document Alliance simply forking the project? Its BSD so a commercial entity could even take a half-baked version, improve it and sell it without having to take the risk of a full development. > Microsoft already control their Open XML format, and they are taking > control of the converter space too. All they need to do now is to > continue progressing Open XML through the standards bodies, and they > have sewn up the market again. How do they "control" a BSD licensed open source project? Ok, they fund it but that is also true of Sun funding OOo. > So, there's still work to do :-) Yes, monitor the converter and fork the project if there are any hints of vested interest. MS have no alternative and this is just a damage limitation exercise. Making the best of a bad job. Whatever happens next they have done what they have done and the main priority seems to me not to waste energy on doom, gloom and paranoia but to monitor the code and make sure its going to work. Also fix weak areas of odf so there are no possible credible criticisms. MS haven't yet published a finalised OXML format so you can bet your bottom dollar things like formulae will be specified and then use to show why odf is inferior, best not to give them that opportunity. Ian -- www.theINGOTS.org www.schoolforge.org.uk www.opendocumentfellowship.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
