Format Comparison Between ODF and MS XML (Groklaw)

Format Comparison Between ODF and MS XML (Groklaw)

This is only a small point, but it is indicative of the quality of the rest of the article: XHTML does not have a 'B' element, which was last seen in HTML 4.0 or the transitional DTD for XHTML 1.0. It could be argued that 'B' is an XHTML element, but it is discontinued in favour of the semantic 'STRONG'.

Aside from that, the argument against non-mixed content seems to only be based on how visually appealing the resulting XML is to a human reader. No thought or mention is given to the design of a parser for either format, which could benefit as easily from the Microsoft approach as the ODF approach. This is more important to me, as I sure as hell hope I never have to edit XML files by hand in a few years time.

The brash approach taken by the article does nothing to enlighten the general public as to whether 'open' or proprietary formats are better, since it offers exactly zero objective criticisms of the way things currently stand. Perhaps it will appeal to a few web designers who hope to convert their existing vim/HTML skills into cash once the format becomes popular.

I am strongly in favour of ODF, but articles like this serve as nothing but bait for those among us who are more concerned with taking sides than understanding the true problem.