| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Format Comparison Between ODF and MS XML (Groklaw)Format Comparison Between ODF and MS XML (Groklaw)Posted Nov 28, 2005 4:39 UTC (Mon) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216)In reply to: Format Comparison Between ODF and MS XML (Groklaw) by XERC Parent article: Format Comparison Between ODF and MS XML (Groklaw)
Is it actually in wide use yet? I was under the impression that the standard they're talking about submitting to ISO/whoever is the Office 12 format, which hasn't been released yet...and people are making noises about not switching because of the cost, incompatibility, etc., although people said that the last x times around too...
(Log in to post comments)
Format Comparison Between ODF and MS XML (Groklaw) Posted Nov 28, 2005 7:28 UTC (Mon) by dark (✭ supporter ✭, #8483) [Link] "MS XML" sometimes refers to the Office 12 format and sometimes to the Office 2003 format (which is different). I think Microsoft is deliberately obscuring the difference, so that they can claim that their XML format is already in use.
Format Comparison Between ODF and MS XML (Groklaw) Posted Nov 28, 2005 9:30 UTC (Mon) by OldRabbit (guest, #30886) [Link] This article compares ODF to the Microsoft Office Open XML format (.docx), sometimes abbreviated to MOOX. This is the format to be used in the forthcoming Office 12. The Office 2003 format has the extension .xml.
Format Comparison Between ODF and MS XML (Groklaw) Posted Nov 28, 2005 13:29 UTC (Mon) by freemars (subscriber, #4235) [Link] The Office 2003 format has the extension .xml. Nobody can ever accuse Microsoft of missing a marketing opportunity. If the extension is .xml it must be XML.
Format Comparison Between ODF and MS XML (Groklaw) Posted Nov 29, 2005 13:14 UTC (Tue) by cpm (guest, #3554) [Link] I'm sorry, I really don't mean to behave like a troll,But if history has shown us anything, it would be that Microsoft does whatever it damned well pleases.
If they want to call a .doc a .xml, they can. And no
|
|
||||||||||||