On Thu, Apr 27, 2000 at 03:52:29PM +1000, Ken Yap wrote:
> >On Thu, Apr 27, 2000 at 03:23:23PM +1000, Ken Yap wrote:
> >> The formats are "published". Only problem is there are lots of
> >> undocumented bits.
> >
> >Are they? Where is Office2000 word's file format documented?
> >
> >You could be right and that still wouldn't help if the published
> >definition of what the bits mean is vague enough.
>
> I assumed he was referring to the previous Word formats. But my point is
> it's no use ordering M$ to "publish" the formats, Office2000 or otherwise,
> if you can't check if they correspond to reality. I don't think even the
> M$ programmers know, their software must be a can of worms by now.
Maybe the approach that governments should take is (similar to
the IETF):
Only use "standards".
Anything can be a standard as long as the details are published
and there are _two_ independantly developed, inter-operating
implementations.
In order to be such a standard, and therefore used by the
government, MS would have to publish enough detail for a
re-implementation to succeed. It's _possible_ that the most
inexpensive way for them to do that is to publish the source
code. I doubt it, though, because the inter-operability
mechanisms in, for example, StarOffice, seem to be getting
pretty close.
If Sun publish the source for StarOffice soon (as they've
promised), then that must open a lot of this sort of thing up to
scrutiny just as well as if MS had done so for MS Office.
It would also satisfy the French politicians, I suspect. MS
may be pretty worried.
--
Andrew
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux Users Group Mailing List - http://www.slug.org.au
To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe in the text
