[odf-discuss] OOXML not so easy?

[Lars D. Noodén]

I can't help but see some parallels with earlier problems.  There's no way 
to be sure of motive, so that's not in the debate.  So, regardless of 
motive, the effect seems the same:

 	Alepin, a former chief technology officer at Fujitsu
 	Software Corp. and currently a San Francisco-based adviser
 	for high-tech law firm Morrison Foerster LLP, testified
 	that 1-2-3's eventual demise was caused in part by
 	Microsoft encouraging Lotus' programmers to use Windows
 	application programming interfaces (API). Microsoft
 	Excel's own developers had already decided those same APIs
 	"were not worthwhile using because they were complicated,"
 	he said. "They used large amounts of memory. They were
 	slower than other ways of doing it."
 	--http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9007527&pageNumber=2

In short, if MS is unable to implement MOOX, it's even less likely that 
any third parties will be able to.  Forcing competitors to flail 
useslessly at the as-of-yet-undocumented MOOX specification is one way of 
ensuring that competitors will always be far behind in compatibility as MS 
Office continues to use the undocumented, binary formats.

UOF and ODF are apparently the only serious options for office formats.

-Lars
Lars Noodén
 	Ensure access to your data in the future
 	http://opendocumentfellowship.org/about_us/contribute