[odf-discuss] Partial implementations

[marbux]

On 11/3/06, Alex Hudson <alex at stratagia.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Well, the covenant for OpenXML is the CNS. If you don't choose to
> believe them until they do it, that's fine, but since the OpenXML spec
> doesn't exist yet you can hardly complain about the license.
>
I beg to differ. The open-ness of MOOX is why Microsoft says people
should plan to build their shops around it rather than ODF. But from
the moment Microsoft announced intent to seek standardization, they
glossed over the fact that no one could possibly know how open MOOX
will be until the legal document governing its use was made available.
I see that Microsoft finally a few days ago did finally adopt a
different covenant for MOOX, the OSP. (Odd they didn't get any press
on that one.) I have been saying all along that the Office 2003 CNS
would not be the document used for MOOX and I was right. There is not
a grammarian on the planet that could make sense of the CNS and tell
you what it permits and denies. In that regard, I note that Novell is
not relying on the Office 2003 CNS or the OSP; it required a separate
covenant from Microsoft to work on MOOX.

> I'm not sure it's that interesting a distinction anyway; if you're not
> happy with the state of the CNS, use the OSP. It's either-or, you don't
> need both, and they say basically the same thing anyway (the OSP is the
> thing that RedHat and Larry Rosen have endorsed, too, not the CNS).
>
They most certainly do not say the same thing. The CNS is unintelligible.

Best regards,

Marbux