Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> __/ [ Jim ] on Tuesday 23 May 2006 20:41 \__
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >> Not trying to spam the group, but several people i've had discussions in
> >> the group with about Office 2007 commented they might try it when the
> >> public beta was available, and it now is:
> >> http://www.microsoft.com/office/preview
> >> Even if you hate Microsoft, know they enemy ;)
> > meh, think I'll skip that one. I'll come across it during my travels no
> > doubt, but for me? I'll stick with openoffice.
> Speaking of Open, check out the following:
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Microsoft also introduces in Office 2007 a new XML-based file format--
> | Open XML--for Word, Excel and PowerPoint. Instead of seeing files with the
> | extensions.doc, .xls and .ppt, respectively, users will see .docx, .pptx
> | and .xlsx. This could be confusing and disruptive if a document in the
> | new format is sent to a user with an older version of Office.
> Doesn't the term "Open XML" disturb you as well? It's the same shite
> (formats), only wrapped in a tree structure. It's no RDF. The use of the
> term XL is often used in the context of openness and data exchanges.
> Microsoft try to capitalise on buzzwords (ruining them in the process)
> rather than concentrate on substance and fairness.
> This transition forces users to upgrade yet again. Ian made a nice comment
> about the intent or the essence of this XML 'format', which is by no means
> a standard, and judging by professional's word, will never become one
> either. It is bound to a single existing implementation.
> Best wishes,
Wow, you're an idiot.
"Draft 1.3 of the Ecma Office Open XML formats standard" was just
released a few days ago, and you can read about it and download the
Also check this site for further enlightenment, so that you don't make
a fool of your self again due to wilfull ignorance: