alt <spamtrap@xxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 19:20:52 -0800, Tim Smith wrote:
>
>> In article <fotjafitkxbo.dlg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> The funny thing is, if ODF had received 1/10th of the scrutiny that
>>> OOXML has received, it would be a far better format.
>>
>> And the sad thing is, it would be possible to come up with a format that
>> is pretty close to ODF, but that has the legacy support Microsoft needs,
>> and many in OASIS wanted to do that, and Microsoft likely would have
>> supported it, but Sun wouldn't allow it.
>>
>> We could have one format that would have truly become universal. Oh
>> well, I forgot--choice is good, so I guess it is supposed to be good
>> that people will have to deal with two formats for the foreseeable
>> future.
>
> Why should the document format support all of Microsoft's (undocumented)
> legacy crap? Shouldn't that be the job of the application?
This is the illusion of choice, not real choice. If it were a choice
between two fully open file formats, then it would simply be a matter of
which one became superior for the job. Considering the phenomenon of
natural monopolies, it's likely that a single system would emerge, in
the end, combining the best properties of both, if it be that a single
system could serve all needs.
The spin of the shills is amazing.
--
| 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 |
|
|
