____/ [H]omer on Tuesday 19 February 2008 03:41 : \____
> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>
>> DIS-29500: Deprecated before use?
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | Simultaneously, ECMA addresses this in Response 34 of its proposed
>> | Disposition of Comments by removing all references to
>> | idiosyncrasies from the specification and placing them in a newly
>> | formed Annex for deprecated information. With the removal of this
>> | information from the DIS-29500, the design goal of MS-OOXML can no
>> | longer be met. The entire specification has therefore effectively
>> | become obsolete.
>> `----
>>
>> http://fsfeurope.org/documents/msooxml-idiosyncrasies
>
> Ooh that's not good for the Vole. Not at all good.
>
> So basically, once you remove the binary-blob junk from OOXML, what you
> have left is something that exactly duplicates the design goal of ODF,
> thus making OOXML redundant (and fully justifying the "overlap" concerns
> voiced by various representatives).
Yes, this issue was raised many times before. Microsoft could (and still might)
strap on its unwanted shovelwave on top of ODF and then demonstrate how broken
its 'feature unbilical cord' truly is (hint: it's 010binar0101y). What's more,
OOXML uses very crypic symbol to represent element. ODF, on the other hand, is
elegant in the sense that it's quite readable like HTML markup.
> IOW Microsoft's "goal" all along had
> nothing whatsoever to do with open standards, and everything to do with
> locking people into their proprietary formats ... formats that they have
> since abandoned anyway due to "security concerns". LOL!
Don't fix them, block them. :-)
> What a monumental cock-up, Redmond style.
Mr. Soprano would be proud.
> Well this just confirms what we knew all along. OOXML is entirely
> unnecessary, and always has been, and was only introduced by Microsoft
> as a way of protecting one of their ailing cash-cows, Office. It was
> nothing more than a sour-grapes reaction to ODF, just as .NET was to
> them getting slapped over their Java "extensions", and Silverlight was
> a Linux-lockout answer to Flash (although their pal Miguel spoiled that
> somewhat).
Yes, that's why Microsoft walked away when it was invited to work on ODF along
with everybody else. As Microsoft recently said, its business is based
on "controlling" (as in owning, properly with patents and all) the 'standard'.
> It hasn't been a good week for the Vole, has it? Toshiba unceremoniously
> dumping HD-DVD, Vista SP1 (pre-alpha, or whatever) manically rebooting
> victims' PCs, and now OOXML clubbed to death with its own severed limb.
> Meanwhile they're running around panhandling for cash to buy Yahoo, so
> they can diversify away from their prehistoric business paradigm, that
> is doomed to oblivion in the forthcoming Web 2.0 revolution, and the era
> of efficient computing (something beyond the comprehension of dinosaurs
> like MS).
It's shameful that the Average Joe (or my close colleague at work) knows about
none of that. People are unaware of how scared Microsoft's top management
(what's left of it anyway) has become when Longhorn was seen as botched. It
all went downhill from there and Live was Dead from the start (still declining
despite $billions down the toilet).
> I almost feel sorry for them.
>
>
> Almost.
Yes, I wrote this too yesterday, but some people still think they are at the
top of the hill. Ask Paul Graham what he thinks about Microsoft. He said they
were "dead" about 9 months ago. And it's no arbitrary guy. Like Michael
Arrington, he's from the Valley, so he speaks to /insiders/.
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Data lacking semantics is currency in an island
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine
|
|
