Linonut wrote:
> * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
>> In article <l1ip95-r7p.ln1@xxxxxxxxxx>, "[H]omer" <spam@xxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>> Indeed, I will go as far as to say that Microsoft planned this
>>> tactic from the very beginning, which is the very reason for the
>>> distended nature of the OOXML specifications to begin with.
>>> Creating an impossibly large and technical specification
>>> document, then seeking fast-track approval, seem like an
>>> obviously devious tactic to me.
>>
>> What you overlook is that the spec was originally much smaller. It
>> was the anti-OOXML people who complained that it was not detailed
>> enough, which forced MS to beef it up to move forward.
>
> Moan moan moan. The bottom line is that OOXML was/is not a standard,
> but a detailed-design document for (in part) legacy Microsoft
> document formats.
The "detail" that Smith alludes to was hidden in the obfuscation of
Microsoft's proprietary extensions to support older proprietary
document formats - something which does not even belong in in a
supposedly "open" specifications proposal in the first place. /This/
was the motivation for the detractors' demands, not some exercise in
bureaucratic pedantry.
Is Smith seriously claiming that Microsoft could not simply document
those proprietary blobs without extending the OOXML specifications by
thousands of pages?
That's one Hell of a lot of proprietary blobs, isn't it?
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| 'When it comes to knowledge, "ownership" just doesn't make sense'
| ~ Cory Doctorow, The Guardian. http://tinyurl.com/22bgx8
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
16:53:23 up 72 days, 14:29, 4 users, load average: 0.09, 0.04, 0.01
|
|
