[odf-discuss] IDC compares MS XML and ODF

[Daniel Carrera]

In addition, I'll comment that given that Microsoft has something like a
95% monopoly in the office market, the fact that the companies surveyed
are more or less half-and-half split between OXML and ODF actually says
something good about ODF and something bad about OXML.

On Mon, 2006-04-12 at 19:28 +0000, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> One problem with the paper is that, IMO, it confuses companies using
> OXML because "we live in a Microsoft world" versus it actually being a
> better format. Assuming all the data is correct, and companies do lean
> (slightly, may I add), towards OXML, that could be (probably is) simply
> a reflection of Microsoft being a monopoly.
> 
> Cheers,
> Daniel.
> 
> On Mon, 2006-04-12 at 15:01 +1100, Michael Carden wrote:
> > Possibly mentioned here already and I missed it.
> > 
> > http://openxmldeveloper.org/archive/2006/11/27/IDC_Open_Document_Standards.aspx
> > 
> > 
> > Link supplied by our local MS sales person. Maybe that's why I detect a certain bias to the paper.
> > 
> > MC
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > odf-discuss mailing list
> > odf-discuss at opendocumentfellowship.org
> > http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.org/mailman/listinfo/odf-discuss
> _______________________________________________
> odf-discuss mailing list
> odf-discuss at opendocumentfellowship.org
> http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.org/mailman/listinfo/odf-discuss
-- 
"I AM in shape. Round IS a shape."
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.com/pipermail/odf-discuss/attachments/20061204/50db125a/attachment-0001.pgp