[odf-discuss] One standard (was: GNOME Foundation Statement...)

Janet Hawtin lucychili at gmail.com
Mon Nov 26 09:27:54 EST 2007


On Nov 26, 2007 6:17 PM, Chris Puttick <cputtick at gmail.com> wrote:

> Using the above draft definition, OOXML should be a standard (once all
> the cruft, inconsistencies, missing definitions, etc. are sorted).
> Those missing definitions would include the mapping between the legacy
> binary formats, version by version. This last is important, because
> there is one more condition to OOXML being a standard: a change in its
> scope, focusing on the key area Microsoft and Ecma return to again and
> again: a standard for the conversion of legacy Microsoft Office
> documents for the purpose of preservation.

if the mapping is only legally safe for MS partners on condition that
they re not in court with MS then this is internally useful
documentation for that organisation about its own formats but is not
an internationally useful standard imho.
the legal scoping is what defines the purpose of the proposal. it does
not appear at this point that it is legally defined with the intent of
being useful beyond the organisation's own extended family(and as I
understand it even that can be rescinded?). with that kind of legal
scoping what is the point of the standards process.



More information about the odf-discuss mailing list