[odf-discuss] Response from a GNOME Foundation board director

[Jody Goldberg]

> Jody Goldberg wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 11:00:14PM +0000, Ian Lynch wrote:
>>>
>>> Again, think people, think emotions, think perception not technical
>>> details. This is about human and community relationships, not coding or
>>> legal analysis. 
>> As an implementer I disagree with those priorities.  This is about 
>> technical details, not perception.
>> This is about writing the code necessary to get something done.
>> The gains from having better interoperability with MS (OOX and
>> binary formats) outweigh the miniscule political cost.
>
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 09:31:03AM -0400, Pamela Jones wrote:
> This is sophistry.   This issue will impact on the acceptance of FOSS in 
> the market, and you argue that you like the tech of MSOOXML so that 
> outweighs that factor?

Please do not put words in my mouth.

I said no such thing.

I'm implementing OOX filters for exactly one reason, there are
existing and potential users that use it as a file format.
Unsurprisingly that is exactly the same rationale for implementing
ODF.  Both formats have impedance mismatches with Gnumeric that
cause data loss at various levels.

Getting documentation for a format != advocating it's adoption
I've spent on the order of 8 years struggling with the pathetic
documentation MS released for XLS, docs that were in some ways
comperable to the original OOX spec.  MS vanished those down the
memory hole, leaving a copies in a few out of print books.  The
costs of not having those specs have been made very very clear
through years of pain.  I took time off work, and missed time with
my family because I do not want anyone to have to go through that
again.  This is not about me getting hot an bothered, lusting after
some sexy Microsoftian data structure.