[odf-discuss] OOo OOXML filters

[Daniel Carrera]

On Tue, 2006-12-12 at 14:10 -0800, marbux wrote:
> Popularity is not a relevant issue. We are talking about two
> proprietary formats here. MOOX is more proprietary in that it is
> designed to impose a monopoly on far more than just the office suite
> market.

But that's not what the word proprietary means.


> > > And it is a single-vendor, one-way format.
> >
> > Not more so than .doc
> 
> Yes, far more so than .doc. Doc could only suck people into a
> particular office suite. EOOXML sucks them into an entire stack of
> proprietary business process software.

I think you are using very strange definitions of words. You are
expressing very valid concerns but calling it the weirdest things. You
are arguing that it's more dangerous. What you said does not make it
more single-vendor (OXML is _less_ controlled by MS than .doc) or more
one-way (converting out of OXML, difficult though it might be, is _less_
difficult than .doc).


> Yes there is. Doc is only a file format. MOOX is a file format too,
> but it is an XML file format designed as a communications protocol in
> a tightly integrated business processes software stack.

But that's not what the word proprietary means.


> There
> > are proprietary things in .doc that are public and documented in MOOX.
> 
> That does not make MOOX an open standard.

I never said it did. I said that it makes it _less_ _proprietary_. RTF
is also less proprietary than .doc and it's not an open standard either.


> I have, however,
> confirmed that many crucial parts of the MOOX specification are
> closed.

Fine, I trust you, but _every_ crucial part of .doc is closed.

Look, I'm not debating the concerns you are stating. I'm debating the
appropriateness of the statement "MOOX is more proprietary than .doc".
The concerns you are expressing, valid though they might be, do not
correspond to the word proprietary.


> > > EOOXML is also only a partial specification.
> >
> > So you make things _more_ proprietary by partially specifying them?
> >
> In this instance, yes.

I give up... let's end the discussion here. We both have very valuable
work to do.


-- 
"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/20061213/2aa750f2/attachment-0001.pgp