[odf-discuss] One standard (was: GNOME Foundation Statement...)
lucychili at gmail.com
Mon Nov 26 07:19:54 EST 2007
On Nov 26, 2007 12:54 PM, Jonathon Coombes <jon at cybersite.com.au> wrote:
> The big issue of concern is when we have more than one
> standard within the same domain addressing the same problem at the
> same time. So again, I concur with the caution about suggesting we
> can have only "one standard" without clarifying very carefully how
> this is defined and why.
ooxml is not legally safe to use.
it is legally scoped in such a way that it does not offer RAND
reasonable and non discriminatory legal surety.
a proposal which is only conditionally legally safe for partners of
the provider is not a standard,
it is a vested interest represented in a document format.
a proponent said that customers know that MS formats will always
contain closed material.
that may be the case, but a standard is a different kind of conversation.
to me it means something is broadly useful that the format is usable
for public information.
lockin for public information is not useful.
we are working in a global community which does have existing
standards around time&date, svg, xml and an open document format.
ooxml is flat out incompatible with them. the proposal in itself is
not explicit. it is not self contained. it references external
material and does not legally cover the external material. imho this
is not constructive. perhaps it is not intended to be constructive.
imho it seems to represent a decision point for the standards bodies
regarding their core purpose and whether they are working towards a
suite of standards which can be used in combination or whether the
standard brand can be recognised as useful if it includes formats
which are not legally safe and which conflict directly with existing
More information about the odf-discuss