> Ah. Well. Obviously, I didn't "get it". Maybe the joke's been
> made too often, and isn't funny anymore. Or maybe I like jokes, but
> when they're used in place of of serious discussion, instead of along
> with it, I get irritated. Meh.
I am truly sorry to have irritated you.
> In the
Ben,
Now, it's sounds real nice to say things like "Let's jettison all
this legacy baggage and start from a fresh, clean design", but reality
doesn't work that way. There are huge costs associated with starting
from scratch. In this case, we're talking about potentially large
numbers of "legac
On 3/11/07, Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/11/07, Jeffry Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [the backwards compatibility provision in OOXML] ... are all things that
> should be in a conversion program - not a modern data storage format.
I don't think it's that simple, for reasons I'v
On 3/11/07, Jeffry Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[the backwards compatibility provision in OOXML] ... are all things that
should be in a conversion program - not a modern data storage format.
I don't think it's that simple, for reasons I've mentioned elsewhere
[1]. Effecting simultaneous i
On 3/11/07, Nigel Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The year is 2007, as nice as it would be to update
the C standard to fix all these bugs, we're talking
about OOXML.
This argument that "OOXML is brand new and thus should have no
legacy baggage" is bogus.
OOXML incl
It actually sounds like OOXML isn't as bad as the C standard,
because at least OOXML gives you the *option* of not incorporating the
bug.
The year is 2007, as nice as it would be to update
the C standard to fix all these bugs, we're talking
about OOXML. If the point o
On 3/11/07, Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It seems possible that a more accurate depiction of the facts would
be that "OOXML includes a compatibility mode to support existing
spreadsheets that assume a bug that dates back to before Microsoft
even had a spreadsheet product".
Which brin
On 3/9/07, Jon 'maddog' Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I thought you were "way smart enough" to guess why. It was to make a
joke ...
Ah. Well. Obviously, I didn't "get it". Maybe the joke's been
made too often, and isn't funny anymore. Or maybe I like jokes, but
when they're used in place
