Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 24th Nov 2007 23:31 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 286852
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-01-06
This is a common argument. OOXML has not reach anything near a critical mass to make it worthwhile, and it doesn't justify it as an implementable standard or the doctored process it has gone through. Saying that Microsoft has come up with it to so it is inevitable is not a great argument.
Whether or not OOXML has hit (or will hit) "critical mass" is irrelevant to the issue of whether it should be promoted as a standard. There are already MANY differing standards for document formats. OOXML is just another one, and it should be measured on its merits -- not on narrow-minded ideology.
The rational approach is to help get peoples' existing documents into an open format everyone can work with. That is the only workable, technical solution that can have any benefit for users. Running around trying to support yet another unsupportable format isn't the answer.
LOL. Great, then you're ready to convert from ODF to OOXML, then.