John W. Kennedy wrote:
John Meyer wrote:
Harold Fuchs wrote:
Slightly off topic but of interest, I think. Sorry if it's old news
- I've
been away.
Okay, forgive me for being the idjit on this one, but given
Microsoft's proprietary nature, why in the world would it want to
make OOXML an
John Meyer wrote:
Harold Fuchs wrote:
Slightly off topic but of interest, I think. Sorry if it's old news -
I've
been away.
Okay, forgive me for being the idjit on this one, but given
Microsoft's proprietary nature, why in the world would it want to make
OOXML an "open standard"? As on
John Meyer wrote:
James Knott wrote:
William Case wrote:
On the other hand, whatever one thinks of Microsoft they are not
stupid.
They must be making some consumer claims (true or not). OOXML is a new
file type, so they can't logically base their argument on existing
widespread use.
What i
2007/9/14, John Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> James Knott wrote:
> > William Case wrote:
> >
> >> On the other hand, whatever one thinks of Microsoft they are not
> stupid.
> >> They must be making some consumer claims (true or not). OOXML is a new
> >> file type, so they can't logically base the
James Knott wrote:
They also claim it improves "compatibility", though I don't know how.
It's true in a certain sense. Since OOXML is essentially an XML-wrapped
serialization of Microsoft Office internals, OOXML is more compatible
with Microsoft than ODF can ever hope to be.
--
John W. Kenn
James Knott wrote:
William Case wrote:
On the other hand, whatever one thinks of Microsoft they are not stupid.
They must be making some consumer claims (true or not). OOXML is a new
file type, so they can't logically base their argument on existing
widespread use.
What is going on?
William Case wrote:
> On the other hand, whatever one thinks of Microsoft they are not stupid.
> They must be making some consumer claims (true or not). OOXML is a new
> file type, so they can't logically base their argument on existing
> widespread use.
>
> What is going on?
>
>
>
They also cl
On 14/09/2007, William Case <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi;
>
> I have been following this thread with some interest.
>
> I have a curiosity question.
Putting aside the obvious benefits to Microsoft of having OOXML declared
> an ISO standard, can or does Microsoft make any claim that there i
On Fri, September 14, 2007 2:50 am, John Meyer wrote:
> And as far as the "competing on standards", that's like saying you're
> going to compete on languages to my thinking.
it's worst, and more dangerous. File formats are alphabets, not languages.
They are even more basics and much more "genera
I think Micro$oft is claiming that if OOXML is NOT declared a standard,
a large black hole will devour the Earth. Or maybe it will rain for 40
days and 40 nights. If they DO make OOXML a standard, it will alleviate
Global Warming, bring Peace to the Middle East, and enable the Tooth
Fairy to ra
On Thursday 13 September 2007 22:52:58 William Case wrote:
> Hmm!
>
> On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 22:33 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> > On Thursday 13 September 2007 21:59:27 William Case wrote:
> > > Hi;
> > >
> > > I have been following this thread with some interest.
> > >
> > > I have a curiosit
Been wondering about that one myself. If it's supposed to be a
"Standard" in which all documents are written, and the "Standard" is a
closely guarded MS proprietary secret, who in the world could believe
that it will be available to absolutely everyone?
Was it actually just as bald as it see
John Meyer wrote:
Harold Fuchs wrote:
Slightly off topic but of interest, I think. Sorry if it's old news -
I've
been away.
Okay, forgive me for being the idjit on this one, but given Microsoft's
proprietary nature, why in the world would it want to make OOXML an
"open standard"?
Beca
Hmm!
On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 22:33 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thursday 13 September 2007 21:59:27 William Case wrote:
> > Hi;
> >
> > I have been following this thread with some interest.
> >
> > I have a curiosity question.
> >
[snip]
>
> There are no additional benefits.
>
> The only t
On Thursday 13 September 2007 21:59:27 William Case wrote:
> Hi;
>
> I have been following this thread with some interest.
>
> I have a curiosity question.
>
> On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 21:00 -0400, James Knott wrote:
> > John Meyer wrote:
> > > Harold Fuchs wrote:
> >
> > The problem for Microsoft is
Hi;
I have been following this thread with some interest.
I have a curiosity question.
On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 21:00 -0400, James Knott wrote:
> John Meyer wrote:
> > Harold Fuchs wrote:
> The problem for Microsoft is that many governments and other
> institutions around the world are insisting o
John Meyer wrote:
> Harold Fuchs wrote:
>> Slightly off topic but of interest, I think. Sorry if it's old news -
>> I've
>> been away.
>>
>>
>
> Okay, forgive me for being the idjit on this one, but given
> Microsoft's proprietary nature, why in the world would it want to make
> OOXML an "open s
Harold Fuchs wrote:
Slightly off topic but of interest, I think. Sorry if it's old news - I've
been away.
Okay, forgive me for being the idjit on this one, but given Microsoft's
proprietary nature, why in the world would it want to make OOXML an
"open standard"? As one poster put it on t
Slightly off topic but of interest, I think. Sorry if it's old news - I've
been away.
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/09/05/microsoft_ooxml_not_a_standard_standards_body_votes.html
--
Harold Fuchs
London, England
Please reply *only* to users@openoffice.org
19 matches
Mail list logo
