Dotan Cohen wrote: >> It is an "Open Standard" with open flexibility written in. Anyone can >> write an incompatible format but why would you unless the intention was >> to create anarchy? >> >> > > They're not trying for anarchy. They're trying to kill any hope of competition, as is shown by their track record. Destroy ODF, so that their own proprietary formats become the only choice.
> With the assumption that Microsoft's motives are to create anarchy, > what should OOo do? Deliberately force incompatibility issues, or be > compatible? > > They want to make their formats appear to be the only usable choice. Given all the open source projects that use ODF, it wouldn't take much effort to see how others manage to be compatible. >>> There are two choices: have a reference implementation or don't. Which >>> do you think is better for the standard? >>> >> We had a large list of programs already vcoexisting as a reference >> implementation. >> > > That is debatable, and it is unreasonable to assume that the player > with 95%+ market share would look at any other implementation as a > reference implementation. > That's the same as saying they get to decide the format for everyone. This is the same company that periodically changes formats and forces users to buy newer versions. > >> If Microsoft wanted to change the format then they >> should and are doing it in 1.2. >> > > They did not change the format. > > Read a bit more from Rob Weir. >> All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall >> be well >> >> > > OT: Could you please explain this quote? I've seen it several times, > yet I fail to see how the third part differs from the first two, or > how the first two differ from each other. Thanks. > > -- Use OpenOffice.org <http://www.openoffice.org> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
