__/ [ Mark Kent ] on Friday 26 January 2007 11:58 \__
> begin oe_protect.scr
> Nedd Ludd <NeddLudd@xxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:1381105.8Oqp8Aeek2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>: IT Sstandrads Hijack Threatens European Economix Competitiveness
>>:
>>: ,----[ Quote ]
>>: | To stop Europe being rail-roaded into an inadequate standard, the
>>: | ODF Alliance urges national supporters who have issues to raise
>>: | contradictions of ECMA's standard with existing standards to
>>: | encourage their national ISO representatives to raise formal
>>: | contradictions as quickly as possible, certainly
>>: | before 5th February 2007.
>>: `----
>>:
>>
>> ODF will have the same data exchange problem that all open standards have
>> -- implementation.
>>
>> Section 1.5 of the ODF standard sets the stage for guaranteed
>> incompatibility:
>>
>><quote>
>>
>> Documents that conform to the OpenDocument specification may contain
>> elements and attributes not specified within the OpenDocument schema.
>>
>></quote>
>>
>> Any vendor can add the elements they want. The data will be unreadable
>> when
>> another vendors product tries to read the file. ODF has vendor lock in
>> built into the specification.
>>
>> The spec also allows data to be deleted from a document. Windows program
>> A can include a DDE object into its document, section 12.6 of the spec
>> describes how. Linux program B can read the file and since it doesn't
>> support DDE ignore and skips over the element. Now if the Linux user
>> saves the file and sends it back to the Windows users, the DDE link can be
>> deleted.
>>
>> Section 12.6:
>>
>><quote>
>>
>> Applications should preserve the DDE connection information even if they
>> cannot make use of it, so that other applications can make use the DDE
>> facilities.
>>
>></quote>
>>
>> The spec says, "Applications *should* preserve the DDE connection
>> information ..." not "Applications *shall* preserve the DDE connection
>> information ...". This clause allows for a means to lose data when
>> exchanging files from one platform to another. The users will have no way
>> of knowing that the file was corrupted.
>>
>> I wouldn't put all my interoperability eggs in the ODF basket.
>>
>>
>
> If that's the best you can do, then there's a nearly perfect standard
> there.
>
> Still, if you think these areas should be changed, why don't you do
> something useful, and submit to ECMA appropriate changes? You are not
> dealing with a Microsoft submission here, you are dealing with something
> specifically designed to ensure interoperability, so I'm quite certain
> that if your problems and solutions have merit, then they will be taken
> seriously and acted upon. Probably the only organisation which might
> try to stop you in that situation would be Microsoft.
>
> Of course, if you try to fix some of the 6,000 (six thousand) pages of
> OOXML, then you'll be working from now throughout the whole of eternity
> just trying to determine how the different pieces interact.
Some of these answers (including the one above) are being repeated by
different trolls, which makes one wonder if they share the same 'base' and
receive some textbook-like "straight facts" instructions. Anyhoo...
We've seen how far (e.g. Wikipedia) this debate can go. There are tens (if
not hundreds) of $billions in stake. It's the future of the cash cow whose
revenue accounts for 80% of that which is made by one particular (and most
prominent) Division.
--
~~ Best wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Wintendo O/S: which virus do fancy today?
http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
1:20pm up 3 days 13:38, 5 users, load average: 0.15, 0.36, 0.50
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
|
|
