Printer binary and ECMA tries duck and cover

,----[ Quote ]
| In short it means ECMA finds Open XML shall remain an incomplete specified
| and inconsistent format. Some elements are still (in the spec undocumented)
| binary. It is hard to understand why DEVMODE structures cannot be transformed
| to XML for consistency reasons. Ah! "High-fidelity" of course which means
| everything but in particular that your XML format is a projection of the
| binary format, also by some referred to as a "dump" of the old legacy format.
| Even more fidelity is guaranteed when you just take the binary. In wonder why
| the drafters of the format started this WordprocessingML and didn't add
| support for the highest fidelity of the doc format inside the open packaging
| zip container.
`----

http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-36122...duck-and-cover

Will the shills even **TRY** to spin this one?


Related and recent:

Minutes [in Denmark]

,----[ Quote ]
| We didn't discuss why the OSP isn't enough but Chris did a lot of work
| criticizing Andy Updegrove for his articles against Microsoft. Well, in
| another audience that might work. *
|
| I criticized Microsoft of taking the fast track route when it was later
| discovered that the specification was not at all qualified for that route. A
| document is not ready for a fast track, when so many faults and errors can be
| found. ECMA didn't do their job. Chris some kind of agreed (!) with me and
| said that the route was chosen after recommendation from ECMA. * *
|
| [...]
|
| I am beginning to understand why Microsoft is still claiming to be open.
| Basically it's a matter of how we interpret the one word open. Microsoft
| think that XML alone makes the standard open. I use another definition. The
| process has to be open and transparent and the organization must be protected
| from being hijacked by a singe vendor. I don't think he [Chris Capossela]
| agreed or even commented on that. * *
`----

http://lodahl.blogspot.com/2008/01/minutes.html


Digging in the Comments: Patents

,----[ Quote ]
| Patent licensing is probably the most important aspect for all third parties
| that want to implement or use the Open XML specification. Unfortunately the
| Ballot Resolution Meeting cannot discuss these aspects because only technical
| and editorial issues would get resolved.
|
| [...]
|
| When you have a patent which covers Open XML and you refuse to license it,
| the standard process gets stalled. Large companies in the standardization
| process are reluctant to use that nuke option. Given the ambush that the
| software patent practice means today it is quite possible that Open XML
| infringes a patent and all parties eventually have an obligation to license
| it.
`----

http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-31491...mments:patents