homembit.com— On the afternoon of last Tuesday (08/04), the final translated version of the ISO/IEC 26300 was approved by members of the ABNT’s committee responsible for that activity.
Apr 12, 2008View in Crawl 4
Apparently drunk, on Mars, in a cave, eyes closed, fingers in ears, and going 'na-na-na-na-na....' for the last, well, fifteen years?That, or he/she was born yesterday...
Just for starters: the ODF spec is much larger than 600 pages long. It incorporates many standards that themlseves are several hundred pages long (see: MathML, xlink, svg, etc). It is also lacking and unable as a format to describe all of the features that are present in Office. This will become obvious soon enough.The whole notion that the length of a specification some how has a direct negative correlation to the quality of the same is simply retarded.
Amen to that.I'll go a bit further - I don't believe Microsoft has any intentions of ever fully supporting OOXML, even if it does eventually become an ISO standard. It's simply not in their interests to do so.
Erm... MS Word can still be the de facto standard. ODF is now the 'de jure' standard in Brazil, that doesn't stop Word from being the de facto standard.
Er... 'whenever' - at any time'however' - in any wayThere's nothing wrong with what he said, which is (paraphrased) "Microsoft's intent for OOXML was not to be able to modify it at any time"
mossblaserApr 13, 2008
I was going to write a long response to your message pointing out how wrong you are but instead I chose to welcome you to my block list.
whodathunkApr 13, 2008
Apparently drunk, on Mars, in a cave, eyes closed, fingers in ears, and going 'na-na-na-na-na....' for the last, well, fifteen years?That, or he/she was born yesterday...
xationApr 13, 2008
Just for starters: the ODF spec is much larger than 600 pages long. It incorporates many standards that themlseves are several hundred pages long (see: MathML, xlink, svg, etc). It is also lacking and unable as a format to describe all of the features that are present in Office. This will become obvious soon enough.The whole notion that the length of a specification some how has a direct negative correlation to the quality of the same is simply retarded.
Closed AccountApr 15, 2008
I hate how people are so PC around here. Seriously, WTF? I though this was hilarious.
nedsliderApr 15, 2008
Amen to that.I'll go a bit further - I don't believe Microsoft has any intentions of ever fully supporting OOXML, even if it does eventually become an ISO standard. It's simply not in their interests to do so.
carzorstelatisApr 17, 2008
If you're going to use caps, at least learn to spell first.
carzorstelatisApr 17, 2008
Erm... MS Word can still be the de facto standard. ODF is now the 'de jure' standard in Brazil, that doesn't stop Word from being the de facto standard.
carzorstelatisApr 17, 2008
Er... 'whenever' - at any time'however' - in any wayThere's nothing wrong with what he said, which is (paraphrased) "Microsoft's intent for OOXML was not to be able to modify it at any time"
Closed AccountApr 19, 2008
lol, whoops.