| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Artificially limiting the debate in Microsoft's favorArtificially limiting the debate in Microsoft's favorPosted Nov 27, 2007 19:10 UTC (Tue) by jdub (subscriber, #27)In reply to: Artificially limiting the debate in Microsoft's favor by stevenj Parent article: The GNOME Foundation on OOXML
To the extent that this is true, we should be vigorously pressing ISO (whose motto is "One standard, one test" after all) to acknowledge that they are relevant. That motto was used in 2002 and is not relevant to ISO's processes. There are plenty of ISO standards that cover the same ground. The crucial point is that they don't conflict with each other, and generally build upon standards that have gone before. So let's not argue OOXML on these grounds. They're just irrelevant. The one area this might work for is us that OOXML reimplements absolutely everything and doesn't build on existing standards (ODF uses things like SVG, etc), but attack it under the terms defined by ISO. I'm not falling for anything -- I'm certainly not falling for some of the uninformed but popular opinions about these things in the FLOSS community.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|
||||||||||||