kdedevelopers.org — According to Icaza:"OOXML is a superb standard and yet, it has been FUDed so badly by its competitors that serious people believe that there is something fundamentally wrong with it. This is at a time when OOXML as a spec is in much better shape than any other spec on that space."
Sep 11, 2007 View in Crawl 4
fluoroSep 11, 2007
But if you read what Miguel has written, he says that Microsoft has been very receptive to criticism and has been working hard to correct the deficiencies. So why is it okay for the ODF extensions to be "well under way", but not the OOXML?I haven't read either spec, and I have no intention of doing so since I'm not a hacker on this type of software. But I respect Miguel a lot, and I know he and his team at Novell work hard on Gnumeric and OOo so I don't think they would give a tip of the hat to OOXML "just because it is Microsoft" like everyone here on digg seems to think.
morphieSep 11, 2007
Well, his experience with microsoft is the mono project (based on ECNA-standaards) and a linking pin between Novell en Microsoft for bringing silverlight to linux. His office suites experience goes far back to the beginning of Gnumeric, which he practically initiated and maintained. :)So, what's the former?
eastshoresSep 12, 2007
Why is Mono a piece of trash? Having developed on a lot of platforms, I am interested to hear why it is you came to that conclusion.
fknightSep 12, 2007
Yeah, let's look at your "facts." Right out of the gate in section 1.1 of your cited document, it quotes OOXML, ECMA-376 Part 4, Page 1384:"[t]o faithfully replicate this behavior, applications must imitate the behavior of that application, which involves many possible behaviors and cannot be faithfully placed into narrative for this Office Open XML Standard. "Unfortunately, the author(s) of that document intentionally attempt to deceive by leaving out the rest of the paragraph:"If applications wish to match this behavior, they must utilize and duplicate the output of those applications. It is recommended that applications not intentionally replicate this behavior as it was deprecated due to issues with its output, and is maintained only for compatibility with existing documents from that application."*IF* applications wish to match this behavior. And *IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT APPLICATIONS NOT INTENTIONALLY REPLICATE THIS BEHAVIOR*The writers of that document that you cite are LIARS.
pilobilusApr 3, 2008
They also managed to destroy the integrity of an important engineering Standards body, by showing how to force it to endorse literally anything if the price is right. From now on, sleazy swindlers will be lined up around the block to buy the "ISO Standard" label for any single vendor lock-in swindle they want to promote.From an Microsoft internal memo:A stacked panel, on the other hand, is like a stacked deck: it is packed with people who, on the face of things, should be neutral, but who are in fact strong supporters of our technology. The key to stacking a panel is being able to choose the moderator. Most conference organizers allow the moderator to select the panel, so if you can pick the moderator, you win. Since you can't expect representatives of our competitors to speak on your behalf, you have to get the moderator to agree to having only "independent ISVs" on the panel. No one from Microsoft or any other formal backer of the competing technologies would be allowed â" just ISVs who have to use this stuff in the "real world." Sounds marvelously independent doesn't it? In fact, it allows us to stack the panel with ISVs that back our cause.
pilobilusApr 3, 2008
How about "OOXML is neither open, nor a Standard", for starters? If you can say it "probably does not matter much about what format it will be", you are not qualified to hold an opinion on the subject. Thank you for repeating Microsoft public relations slogans.
pilobilusApr 3, 2008
From a Microsoft internal memo:A stacked panel, on the other hand, is like a stacked deck: it is packed with people who, on the face of things, should be neutral, but who are in fact strong supporters of our technology. The key to stacking a panel is being able to choose the moderator. Most conference organizers allow the moderator to select the panel, so if you can pick the moderator, you win. Since you can't expect representatives of our competitors to speak on your behalf, you have to get the moderator to agree to having only "independent ISVs" on the panel. No one from Microsoft or any other formal backer of the competing technologies would be allowed â" just ISVs who have to use this stuff in the "real world." Sounds marvelously independent doesn't it? In fact, it allows us to stack the panel with ISVs that back our cause.