| |||||||||||||
Short version / Spoiler:Short version / Spoiler:Posted Feb 10, 2006 23:19 UTC (Fri) by tomsi (subscriber, #2306)In reply to: Short version / Spoiler: by BrucePerens Parent article: Is ODF an Open Standard? ~ by David A. Wheeler (Groklaw)
I liked his approach. He begins with a few definitions and builds on that. I could not find any issues with it.
I can see why Microsoft isn't happy, as they weren't in the loop...
Groklaw had a comparison between the Microsoft XML format and the Open Document Format, and it shows that Microsoft don't want an open format.
Tom
(Log in to post comments)
Short version / Spoiler: Posted Feb 11, 2006 0:10 UTC (Sat) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link] >I can see why Microsoft isn't happy, as they weren't in the loop...
If they weren't in the loop, it's because they kept themselves out of it. Note this quote from the article:
"The 'open meeting' requirement that 'all may participate in the standards development' is a little more interesting, but it seems to be met, too:
* Note that this does not mean that everyone has to participate -- sometimes organizations who should participate dont do so. In 2004, Europe formally asked in very strong language that Microsoft participate in OpenDocument development; while it was an observer on the technical committee for a long while, and is part of OASIS, Microsoft never chose to become actively involved with this standard. The definition doesnt require that all parties get involved, merely that they are given the opportunity."
Short version / Spoiler: Posted Feb 11, 2006 0:28 UTC (Sat) by tomsi (subscriber, #2306) [Link] You are "dead on":
"sometimes organizations who should participate dont do so."
"he definition doesnt require that all parties get involved, merely that they are given the opportunity."
I think Microsfot don't wan't to paticipate, because they know that they lose. It's not their ball anymore, so they can't dictate the game.
Just my two cents...
Tom
|
|||||||||||||