[odf-discuss] Mass may endorse OXML.

[marbux]

On 7/3/07, Daniel Carrera <daniel.carrera at zmsl.com> wrote:
>
> marbux wrote:
> > Too bad the IBM office productivity software execs never got that memo.
> > Rip out and replace is the only option they've given the enterprise
> > market for ODF implementation...
> >
> > Governments have largely been awaiting the
> > interoperability tools needed to escape Microsoft's lock-in but the
> > tools have not been forthcoming. And won't be given current attitudes
> > toward interoperability on the ODF TC at OASIS.
>
> We are all aware that you hold a personal grudge with the TC because
> your pet feature was not supported by all the suppliers that actually
> have ODF implementations in the market.


There you go again with your ad hominem, straw horse  attacks.


Everyone who actually produces
> an ODF application in the market or who has a technical background and
> has chosen to speak has pointed out that your demands are either
> impractical or unnecessary (Thomas, Patrick, Bruce, Alex, Rob, myself
> and others). (Everyone is referred to the archives of the TC list and
> this list.) You are not going to accomplish a lot by jumping up and down
> every time you get a chance. I'm tired. Please stop. Thank you.
>

And of course the majority never makes a mistake. I'm consulting with some
people who are actually working on high fidelity MS Office-ODF interop. None
of the people you mention are. And you grossly overstate the situation with
them. E.g., the only reason there is any xml:id preservation requirement at
all is because I pointed out that it was an issue of importance to
interoperability, and several people agreed with me on that, including
Bruce, Patrick, and Michael Brauer. The current scrap is over the issue of
whether preservation will be merely encouraged or made mandatory. The folks
who want to make it aspirational only seem to be carrying the day, but I do
not think there is anything unreasonable about my preference for a "shall
preserve xml:id attributes unless [list of exceptions]" approach. We already
have a huge interop barrier because StarOffice/OOo strip foreign elements
and attributes instead of preserving them. Why give Sun or anyone else the
right to destroy xml:id attributes except in defined circumstances?

If you're tired, why not take a nap instead of blaming me? It's obviously
affecting your recollection of events. :-)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.com/pipermail/odf-discuss/attachments/20070704/a13056d0/attachment-0001.htm