|
|
Log in / Subscribe / Register

False dichotomy

False dichotomy

Posted Oct 30, 2007 17:56 UTC (Tue) by ajross (subscriber, #4563)
In reply to: False dichotomy by stevenj
Parent article: GNOME and OOXML 

Agreed.  No one would bat an eye if GNOME announced a project to write a library that
abstracted the (reverse-engineered) binary .doc format for applications.  But try working with
the vendor on an *actual* standard (however flawed it might be) and they get flamed?  Sigh.

to post comments

False dichotomy

Posted Oct 30, 2007 18:40 UTC (Tue) by sayler (guest, #3164) [Link] 

http://www.itwire.com/content/view/15089/1091/1/1/

Speaking of trolls :P

Maybe I'm just a corporate shill, but working on *two* fronts, as opposed to just one seems
like a good idea to me.

False dichotomy

Posted Oct 30, 2007 22:10 UTC (Tue) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link]

Actually, I was thinking of the other side. People who are opposed to ISO standardization are accused of not caring about interoperating with MS Office or of not wanting documentation for MS formats. And some GNOME personalities (*cough* Miguel) seem to think that helping ISO bless OOXML is the only way to get documentation out of MS (and is worth the cost of having two incompatible ISO standards).


Copyright © 2026, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds