stinky
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| rgviza Apr 22, 2008 9:26 AM EDT |
Typical MS. Implement a standard differently than everyone else so you need to code special stuff just for them. What's the point of standards again? I'm envisioning the sort of mess that was HTML/ECMA/CSS from 95 to 2005 or so, only for thick clients this time. If I had a penny for every line of code wasted on making "standards" work with microsoft products, since they implemented javascript and CSS in IE, I'd have more money than the Iraq war will cost. I still have a hard time understanding why corporations buy products from a company that costs them so much money because they won't play nice with anyone. FOSS solves this problem and it's, well, free. -Viz |
| dinotrac Apr 22, 2008 9:29 AM EDT |
>What's the point of standards again? Umm....This could actually be where it gets cool. If MS-Office doesn't comply with the standard, it is not standards-compliant. A government contract could now avoid a lot of political heat by requiring software that is standards compliant, allow either ODF or OOXML, and still keep Microsoft on the outside looking in. OOXML, in that sense, ceases to be what Microsoft says it is and becomes what the standard says it is. |
| dumper4311 Apr 22, 2008 9:38 AM EDT |
Holy crap! From dino the pragmatist to dino the idealist. Whew, what a ride! :) Seriously, this is the ideal we should be working for. Not killing off anything we don't agree with, but making standards open, and enforcing their usage (at least in the public sector). You can't rob people of the freedom to make bad choices, but we should all work towards making it as easy as possible to make the right choices. In that sense I agree, this is what standards are for. |
| rijelkentaurus Apr 22, 2008 9:38 AM EDT |
Quoting: Umm....This could actually be where it gets cool. I sure as s*** hope so...it'd be nice for MS to have painted themselves into a bit of a corner. |
| number6x Apr 22, 2008 9:42 AM EDT |
What would really be cool would be if MS has painted themselves in a corner by not having an office suite that is either ODF or OOXML compliant, and the easiest way out for them is to base the next version of Windows office on Open Office.org! That would be cool |
| rijelkentaurus Apr 22, 2008 11:33 AM EDT |
Quoting: What would really be cool would be if MS has painted themselves in a corner by not having an office suite that is either ODF or OOXML compliant, and the easiest way out for them is to base the next version of Windows office on Open Office.org! LOL, I would love that!!! EDIT: Better yet, OOo can make itself OOXML compliant and be certified on two ISO standards while MS has zero. |
| jezuch Apr 22, 2008 3:04 PM EDT |
I wonder what they will do with existing documents saved with Office 2007. They're OOXML but they're not. *This* is where things get interesting... for the poor employees that have to make it work... Poor, little, doomed souls. |
| Steven_Rosenber Apr 22, 2008 8:38 PM EDT |
I imagine that there will be an Office 2007 update at some point ... maybe. |
| tracyanne Apr 22, 2008 11:29 PM EDT |
Actually this is quite funny, it demonstrates the hypocrisy of those who supported OOXML, and Microsoft rather well. |
| techiem2 Apr 23, 2008 4:28 AM EDT |
So...let's say Some Agency requires a Standards Compliant Office Suite and that all their documents be saved in an approved standard file format (such as ODF or OOXML) for accessibility in the future and for being able to distribute documents freely without worrying about the recipient not being able to open them: MS lobbyists argue about how Office is "compliant enough" with the OOXML standard (blah blah Office was finished before the standard was finalized, we support all the important parts, incompatibilities are minor and don't matter, etc.) and that they are the de-facto standard suite anyway thus they should be used. Others point out how 1. MS has itself said it will not hold to the standard if it doesn't follow their future plans for Office, thus likely putting agency back in lockin world when MS decides such is the case and makes changes in their "version" that are incompatible (either processing wise or patent/IP/whatever wise) with the published standard and can thus only be opened in MS Office, and thus destroying the whole purpose of the agency requiring the use of an Open Standard to begin with and putting the agency in violation of it's policy. 2. OpenOffice etc. are fully standards compliant with the ODF standard (which was a standard before OOXML and was already implemented in several products at the time) which MS didn't bother to implement but instead forced through their own standard that they don't even comply with fully themselves and that would be near impossible for another entity to comply with fully due to the many issues that have already been discussed in depth. hmmm. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!