> Now I understand, you think Microsoft are using ODF V1.2! No, but starting from 1.2 I think would be a good point. Starting in the middle of 1.1 will be a mess.
> They aren't, > they are using a bastardised 1.1 which does not conform to what other > 1.1 using programs already use _interoperably_. They are using 1.1 as defined by the OASIS consortium. The standard is loose enough to allow their different interpretation. That is a fault of the standard. > They are the latecomers > onto the stage with a fubar implementation. Nobody is going to change > another program to break compatibilty with documents already saved > in this format. The 1.2 spec is still under development in OASIS. > This is why I say to leave 1.1 as it is, and to render 1.2 as MSO renders 1.2. >> The truth is, I don't like playing follow the leader either. But in >> this unique example, I do say that OOo should play by MS's rules, to >> make their toehold in the industry stand. Just as OOo looks to MSO as >> the reference implementation of DOC, so should it be with ODF. >> > > I disagree. > There are two choices: have a reference implementation or don't. Which do you think is better for the standard? -- Dotan Cohen http://what-is-what.com http://gibberish.co.il --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
