Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> ____/ Mark Kent on Wednesday 05 September 2007 10:15 : \____
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>> ____/ alt on Tuesday 04 September 2007 22:15 : \____
>>>> On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 14:24:05 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>> ISO records a "NO" vote on OOXML
>>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>>> | Our sources inside ISO say that the result of the electronic vote is
>>>>> | "NO". Our own unconfirmed calculations confirm that neither sufficient
>>>>> | P-members voted to approve the vote, nor did enough members overall.
>>>> They've rejected fast tracking the *ahem* standard. It's still on, but now
>>>> it has to go through normal channels with a regular debate.
>>> Yes, as well as about 10,000 comments to address (by fixing it all). Now
>>> that we know who was bribed and which people in Microsoft resorted to
>>> corruption, we can finally turn our attention to them (instead of working
>>> hard towards the Sept. 2nd deadline).
>> Well, with 10,000 comments to consider, and a 6,000 page "standard"
>> which needs proper analysis, how many years would this take? I'd be
>> surprised if you could do it well in a decade. The standard is just
>> *too big*.
>> Even huge standards like H.248 are only about 10 documents of about 30
>> pages, so it's a 300 page read, in small print, on both sides of the
>> page... of course, to make sense of it, you need to read a lot of other
>> standards too, but that will also be true of OOXML.
>> It should never have been born.
> You hitting the wrong note here, I think. It's not the length. It's the quality
> (lack thereof). It's also deficient re-implementation and reinvention of the
> wheel (as in, "those who don't understand UNIX are bound to mimic/reinvent it
> poorly"). OOXML makes no reuse of existing standard, so it's inflated and you
> are less likely to find components (code) that are reusable. Only Microsoft
> has it. 20+ years of development. Stephane, who is an OOXML 'expert', has just
> left a very alarming comment (moments ago):
The length of the standard is directly proportion to how long it takes
to study it properly, though. In some meetings, we've spent long
periods just arguing about one or other word in a sentence, so imagine
that problem multiplied by 6,000 on a page by page basis. I do not see
how any standards body could possibly consider adopting something like
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |