the OOXML standard that wasn't .. - Linux

This is a discussion on the OOXML standard that wasn't .. - Linux ; "let's take a look at how OOXML and ODF represent a staple of document formats" Format, Text Color, Text Alignment OOXML Text, , OOXML Sheet, , OOXML Presentation, , Pr algn="r"/> "The results speak for themselves" http://www.robweir.com/blog/2008/03/...-of-ooxml.html...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: the OOXML standard that wasn't ..

  1. the OOXML standard that wasn't ..

    "let's take a look at how OOXML and ODF represent a staple of document
    formats"

    Format, Text Color, Text Alignment

    OOXML Text, ,
    OOXML Sheet, ,
    OOXML Presentation, , Pr algn="r"/>

    "The results speak for themselves"

    http://www.robweir.com/blog/2008/03/...-of-ooxml.html

  2. Re: the OOXML standard that wasn't ..

    On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 06:59:40 -0700 (PDT), Doug Mentohl wrote:

    > "let's take a look at how OOXML and ODF represent a staple of document
    > formats"
    >
    > Format, Text Color, Text Alignment
    >
    > OOXML Text, ,
    > OOXML Sheet, ,
    > OOXML Presentation, , Pr algn="r"/>
    >
    > "The results speak for themselves"


    What language are they speaking?

    I doubt any user really gives a hoot.

    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  3. Re: the OOXML standard that wasn't ..

    On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 11:31:00 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

    > On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 06:59:40 -0700 (PDT), Doug Mentohl wrote:
    >
    >> "let's take a look at how OOXML and ODF represent a staple of document
    >> formats"
    >>
    >> Format, Text Color, Text Alignment
    >>
    >> OOXML Text, , OOXML
    >> Sheet, , OOXML
    >> Presentation, , Pr algn="r"/>
    >>
    >> "The results speak for themselves"

    >
    > What language are they speaking?
    >
    > I doubt any user really gives a hoot.


    I doubt any user gives a hoot either, but it's very nice if they are
    CONSISTANT.

  4. Re: the OOXML standard that wasn't ..

    On 5 Apr 2008 19:47:50 GMT, ray wrote:

    > I doubt any user gives a hoot either, but it's very nice if they are
    > CONSISTANT.


    Unless, of course, you're talking about Linux user interfaces.

  5. Re: the OOXML standard that wasn't ..

    On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 19:47:50 +0000, ray wrote:

    > On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 11:31:00 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
    >
    >> On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 06:59:40 -0700 (PDT), Doug Mentohl wrote:
    >>
    >>> "let's take a look at how OOXML and ODF represent a staple of document
    >>> formats"
    >>>
    >>> Format, Text Color, Text Alignment
    >>>
    >>> OOXML Text, , OOXML
    >>> Sheet, , OOXML
    >>> Presentation, , Pr algn="r"/>
    >>>
    >>> "The results speak for themselves"

    >>
    >> What language are they speaking?
    >>
    >> I doubt any user really gives a hoot.

    >
    > I doubt any user gives a hoot either, but it's very nice if they are
    > CONSISTENT.


    The only thing Microsoft understands about the word "consistent" is when
    it's directly related to the word "income".

  6. Re: the OOXML standard that wasn't ..

    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > On 5 Apr 2008 19:47:50 GMT, ray wrote:
    >
    >> I doubt any user gives a hoot either, but it's very nice if they are
    >> CONSISTANT.

    >
    > Unless, of course, you're talking about Linux user interfaces.


    This may come as a bit of a shock to you, but open document formats and user
    interface designs are two different things. And for the former to be
    promoted to an international standard, it had better be error-free,
    unencumbered, and be judged predominantly on its technical merits.
    Microsoft's "victory" in this matter satisfies none of these
    requirements -- quite the contrary: this is more like someone claiming
    victory in a chess championship after knocking out the favourite with the
    chess board and shoving the pieces where the sun doesn't shine. In other
    words: in typical Microsoft style.

    Richard Rasker
    --
    http://www.linetec.nl/

  7. Re: the OOXML standard that wasn't ..

    On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 02:59:33 +0200, Richard Rasker wrote:

    > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >
    >> On 5 Apr 2008 19:47:50 GMT, ray wrote:
    >>
    >>> I doubt any user gives a hoot either, but it's very nice if they are
    >>> CONSISTANT.

    >>
    >> Unless, of course, you're talking about Linux user interfaces.

    >
    > This may come as a bit of a shock to you, but open document formats and user
    > interface designs are two different things.


    While true, consistency is a common theme.

    > And for the former to be promoted to an international standard,
    > it had better be error-free,


    Really? Then explain why ODF became an ISO standard when it was incomplete
    and rife with errors. So much so that they've already released 1 new
    version to correct them, and are working on a 2nd.

    > unencumbered


    Yet ODF has an almost identical patent pledge.

    > and be judged predominantly on its technical merits.


    And yet, ODF sailed through without anyone questioning it, despite apparent
    desperate need for such questioning.

  8. Re: the OOXML standard that wasn't ..

    In article ,
    Richard Rasker wrote:
    > This may come as a bit of a shock to you, but open document formats and user
    > interface designs are two different things. And for the former to be
    > promoted to an international standard, it had better be error-free,
    > unencumbered, and be judged predominantly on its technical merits.


    Where were you when ODF was being standardized with errors and
    encumberances and a large number of the same technical flaws that are
    allegedly in OOXML?

    --
    --Tim Smith

  9. Re: the OOXML standard that wasn't ..

    Moshe Goldfarb is flatfish (aka: Gary Stewart)

    http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2008/...arb-troll.html
    http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2007/...ish-troll.html

    Traits:

    Frequently cross posts replies to other non-Linux related newsgroups


  10. Re: the OOXML standard that wasn't ..

    Erik Funkenbusch trolled:

    >>> Unless, of course, you're talking about Linux user interfaces.

    >>
    >> This may come as a bit of a shock to you, but open document formats and
    >> user interface designs are two different things.

    >
    > While true, consistency is a common theme.


    For trolling.

  11. Re: the OOXML standard that wasn't ..

    * Erik Funkenbusch peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > Really? Then explain why ODF became an ISO standard when it was incomplete
    > and rife with errors. So much so that they've already released 1 new
    > version to correct them, and are working on a 2nd.


    So what, Erik? Are you trying to divert attention from the big brouhaha
    that Microsoft caused in its strenuous efforts to cram OOXML through the
    system?

    I don't seem to remember any such brouhaha over ODF. Could it be that
    it was simply a better standard than OOXML?

    >> unencumbered

    >
    > Yet ODF has an almost identical patent pledge.
    >
    >> and be judged predominantly on its technical merits.

    >
    > And yet, ODF sailed through without anyone questioning it, despite apparent
    > desperate need for such questioning.


    That's you putting your spin on it, nothing more, Erik "Pay No Attention
    to the Man Behind the Curtain" Funkenbusch.

    --
    I'm a big believer that as much as possible, and there's obviously political
    limitations, freedom of migration is a good thing. -- Bill Gates, "Bill Gates
    backs immigration reform on Mexico trip" Reuters (21 March 2007)

  12. Re: the OOXML standard that wasn't ..

    * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > In article ,
    > Richard Rasker wrote:
    >> This may come as a bit of a shock to you, but open document formats and user
    >> interface designs are two different things. And for the former to be
    >> promoted to an international standard, it had better be error-free,
    >> unencumbered, and be judged predominantly on its technical merits.

    >
    > Where were you when ODF was being standardized with errors and
    > encumberances and a large number of the same technical flaws that are
    > allegedly in OOXML?


    Question begging.

    ODF passed with apparently little controversy. OOXML passed with a
    metric assload of controversy. Obviously there was much that was
    different in the process of making ODF a standard.

    --
    To create a new standard, it takes something that's not just a little bit
    different; it takes something that's really new and really captures people's
    imagination -- and the Macintosh, of all the machines I've ever seen, is the
    only one that meets that standard.
    -- Bill Gates

  13. Re: the OOXML standard that wasn't ..

    On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 16:51:33 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > On 5 Apr 2008 19:47:50 GMT, ray wrote:
    >
    >> I doubt any user gives a hoot either, but it's very nice if they are
    >> CONSISTANT.

    >
    > Unless, of course, you're talking about Linux user interfaces.


    AFAIK Linux user interfaces do not fall under a 'standard' - ooxml was
    supposed to.

  14. Re: the OOXML standard that wasn't ..

    On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 10:26:05 -0400, Linonut wrote:

    > * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> In article ,
    >> Richard Rasker wrote:
    >>> This may come as a bit of a shock to you, but open document formats and user
    >>> interface designs are two different things. And for the former to be
    >>> promoted to an international standard, it had better be error-free,
    >>> unencumbered, and be judged predominantly on its technical merits.

    >>
    >> Where were you when ODF was being standardized with errors and
    >> encumberances and a large number of the same technical flaws that are
    >> allegedly in OOXML?

    >
    > Question begging.
    >
    > ODF passed with apparently little controversy. OOXML passed with a
    > metric assload of controversy. Obviously there was much that was
    > different in the process of making ODF a standard.


    Yes, the fact that there wasn't a large, well funded company doing
    everything it can, including the very things it accuses the other side of
    doing, to oppose it.

  15. Re: the OOXML standard that wasn't ..

    On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 10:24:10 -0400, Linonut wrote:

    > * Erik Funkenbusch peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> Really? Then explain why ODF became an ISO standard when it was incomplete
    >> and rife with errors. So much so that they've already released 1 new
    >> version to correct them, and are working on a 2nd.

    >
    > So what, Erik? Are you trying to divert attention from the big brouhaha
    > that Microsoft caused in its strenuous efforts to cram OOXML through the
    > system?


    No, i'm trying to point out the hypocricy in the anti-ooxml crowd for
    supporting ODF, yet opposing OOXML for reasons that also apply to ODF.

    > I don't seem to remember any such brouhaha over ODF. Could it be that
    > it was simply a better standard than OOXML?


    No. It was deficient in many ways. So much so that they've almost doubled
    the size of the document in 1.1 and 1.2.

    The difference is that there were no financial intersts aligned against
    ODF, and there were no companies with a finanacial interest in the failure
    of ODF opposted to it.

    >>> unencumbered

    >>
    >> Yet ODF has an almost identical patent pledge.
    >>
    >>> and be judged predominantly on its technical merits.

    >>
    >> And yet, ODF sailed through without anyone questioning it, despite apparent
    >> desperate need for such questioning.

    >
    > That's you putting your spin on it, nothing more, Erik "Pay No Attention
    > to the Man Behind the Curtain" Funkenbusch.


    Then explain why they've almost doubled the size of the document since
    making it a standard.

  16. Re: the OOXML standard that wasn't ..

    Erik Funkenbusch writes:

    > On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 10:24:10 -0400, Linonut wrote:
    >
    >> * Erik Funkenbusch peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >>
    >>> Really? Then explain why ODF became an ISO standard when it was incomplete
    >>> and rife with errors. So much so that they've already released 1 new
    >>> version to correct them, and are working on a 2nd.

    >>
    >> So what, Erik? Are you trying to divert attention from the big brouhaha
    >> that Microsoft caused in its strenuous efforts to cram OOXML through the
    >> system?

    >
    > No, i'm trying to point out the hypocricy in the anti-ooxml crowd for
    > supporting ODF, yet opposing OOXML for reasons that also apply to ODF.
    >
    >> I don't seem to remember any such brouhaha over ODF. Could it be that
    >> it was simply a better standard than OOXML?

    >
    > No. It was deficient in many ways. So much so that they've almost doubled
    > the size of the document in 1.1 and 1.2.
    >
    > The difference is that there were no financial intersts aligned against
    > ODF, and there were no companies with a finanacial interest in the failure
    > of ODF opposted to it.
    >
    >>>> unencumbered
    >>>
    >>> Yet ODF has an almost identical patent pledge.
    >>>
    >>>> and be judged predominantly on its technical merits.
    >>>
    >>> And yet, ODF sailed through without anyone questioning it, despite apparent
    >>> desperate need for such questioning.

    >>
    >> That's you putting your spin on it, nothing more, Erik "Pay No Attention
    >> to the Man Behind the Curtain" Funkenbusch.

    >
    > Then explain why they've almost doubled the size of the document since
    > making it a standard.


    He won't. he's a two faced liar and hypocrite and his rants have become
    almost Schestowitz'esque in the past months.

  17. Re: the OOXML standard that wasn't ..

    In article ,
    Linonut wrote:
    > ODF passed with apparently little controversy. OOXML passed with a
    > metric assload of controversy. Obviously there was much that was
    > different in the process of making ODF a standard.


    Yes--no one was paying bloggers to generate a large amount of anti-ODF
    FUD. No one went to ODF standards meetings with the intention of
    blocking the standard, rather than with the intention of contributing to
    fixing it. No one went to ODF standards meetings with the attitude that
    "we'll fix this in a later version" was unacceptable. That's what was
    different.

    --
    --Tim Smith

  18. Re: the OOXML standard that wasn't ..

    * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > In article ,
    > Linonut wrote:
    >> ODF passed with apparently little controversy. OOXML passed with a
    >> metric assload of controversy. Obviously there was much that was
    >> different in the process of making ODF a standard.

    >
    > Yes--no one was paying bloggers to generate a large amount of anti-ODF
    > FUD. No one went to ODF standards meetings with the intention of
    > blocking the standard, rather than with the intention of contributing to
    > fixing it. No one went to ODF standards meetings with the attitude that
    > "we'll fix this in a later version" was unacceptable. That's what was
    > different.


    I think you're making things up here, Tim.

    --
    When you want to do your homework, fill out your tax return, or see all the
    choices for a trip you want to take, you need a full-size screen.
    -- Bill Gates

  19. Re: the OOXML standard that wasn't ..

    * Erik Funkenbusch peremptorily fired off this memo:

    >> That's you putting your spin on it, nothing more, Erik "Pay No Attention
    >> to the Man Behind the Curtain" Funkenbusch.

    >
    > Then explain why they've almost doubled the size of the document since
    > making it a standard.


    My guess would be that its the same reason the C++ standard grew:

    An active body of companies actually using the standard and feeding
    suggestions, extensions, and improvements into the technical groups.

    As opposed to trying to ram a technical description of one vendor's
    mutating (over the years) proprietary document format through a
    fast-track standards process.

    You have to ask yourself why so many people seem to be against
    Microsoft's OOXML. The answer is obvious: Microsoft is arrogant; a
    corporate bully; as evangelistic as any Amway scammer; and thus they
    viciously and cynically gamed rules made to promote open discussion and
    consensus among collegial industry representatives.

    --
    If you show people the problems and you show people the solutions they will be
    moved to act.
    -- Bill Gates, At Live8 (2 July 2005) as reported in BBC News (4 July 2005)

  20. Re: the OOXML standard that wasn't ..

    On Apr 6, 10:26*am, Linonut wrote:
    > * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    > > In article ,
    > > *Richard Rasker wrote:
    > >> This may come as a bit of a shock to you, but open document formats anduser
    > >> interface designs are two different things. And for the former to be
    > >> promoted to an international standard, it had better be error-free,
    > >> unencumbered, and be judged predominantly on its technical merits.

    >
    > > Where were you when ODF was being standardized with errors and
    > > encumberances and a large number of the same technical flaws that are
    > > allegedly in OOXML?

    >
    > Question begging.
    >
    > ODF passed with apparently little controversy. OOXML passed with a
    > metric assload of controversy. *Obviously there was much that was
    > different in the process of making ODF a standard.
    >


    If a secretary leaves Microsoft it's a big controversy around here.

+ Reply to Thread