sutor.com — There have been many lessons learned in the last few months. Let?s use that knowledge to improve how we make standards. Let?s innovate. Let?s write some great new code. Let?s give our users a superb choice of applications that can all share the same information, no matter who writes the software.
Sep 5, 2007 View in Crawl 4
daftmanSep 6, 2007
3 months? I guess when you have 7000 pages of spec it would take you that long.
vdogSep 6, 2007
This isn't a Linux issue. It's about MS trying to get their own standard adopted as the standard that everybody will use. If they can make it the standard that we all should use, they'll be able to lock us in (despite the name, the standard is not open). This would create an environment where no-body can compete with them- only their software will be able to open our documents. That's bad for everyone, whether you're a Linux user or not.
foreplaySep 6, 2007
2.15.3.64 useWord97LineBreakRules (Emulate Word 97 East Asian Line Breaking) This element specifies that applications shall emulate the behavior of a previously existing word processing application (Microsoft Word 97) when determining the line breaking rules for East Asian text within a WordprocessingML document. [Guidance: To 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. 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. end guidance]It does state that its deprecated but the part about how it cant be put into narrative for office open xml has me stumped. if you cant explain it how can it be considered open for others to use. if it cant it has absolutely no place in the specifications.
tippisSep 6, 2007
"OOXML is far superior in this regards because Apple has independently managed create an interoperable implementation of OOXML in their iWork Suite."If that is how you judge superiority, then OOXML is obviously not superior -- Apple has *not* managed to create an interoperable imlementation, only a rough one-way translator which has problems reading some files.Heck, not even *Microsoft's own* (supposedly) OOXML-capable programs can properly read fully compliant OOXML files.
zhulienSep 6, 2007
anyone heard of plain ASCII text files which actually work on almost every computer platform in existance? what's the use of a new doc format that doesn't work on anything OLD except perhaps AmigaOS/MorphOS I guess with their datatypes?
ottoSep 6, 2007
OOXML is a standard only used by one vendor: Microsoft. Apple can import it because they spent a lot of money to make a translator that works badly about half the time.OOXML is *impossible to implement*. Even Microsoft's own products produce files that directly contradict the so-called standard.ODF will win because it's still a living standard. It is being actively developed by pretty much all the rest of the world. OOXML is not being developed by anybody at all. Simple as that.
carzorstelatisSep 7, 2007
I hardly think Apple are going to blow an 'incredible budget' on a ?50 evolution of what was once ClarisWorks.
foreplaySep 8, 2007
iwork is not proof other people can implement ooxml because it is read only support at the minute and is bad at that. <a class="user" href="http://stephesblog.blogs.com/my_weblog/odf/index.html">http://stephesblog.blogs.com/my_weblog/odf/index.html</a>oh yeah openoffice is also trying to actually implement ooxml as we speak. <a class="user" href="http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS/entry/office_open_xml_ooxml_filters">http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS/entry/office_open_xml_ooxml_filters</a>