Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: [News] Microsoft OOXML: Fail

"[H]omer" <spam@xxxxxxx> wrote in news:l1ip95-r7p.ln1@xxxxxxxxxx:

> Jesper Lund Stocholm wrote:
>> "[H]omer" <spam@xxxxxxx> wrote in news:aa0p95-vsf.ln1@xxxxxxxxxx:
>>> Jesper Lund Stocholm wrote:
> 
>>>> http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/archive/2008/02/29/brm-is-done-tim
>>>> e-to-sleep.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> You mean that same comment that you discredited because; 'You can 
>>> not in any way what so ever conclude that any "abstain"-vote by any
>>> country is the same as a negative vote.'?
>> 
>> No - I was referrring to the comment listing the raw numbers. All I 
>> said was that I did not agree to the conclusion of those figures.
> 
> So you do not agree that the "97.86%" vote represents purely negative
> votes, but you assert that it may also include abstentions

No - I have not discussed the individual numbers. I have just said that I 
do not agree that an "Abstain"-vote can be regarded as "against a change 
to the text"

> (I don't
> know for a fact, since I do not have access to that data). And you
> further assert that an abstention is not tantamount to a rejection.

Yes

> Therefore your scepticism, based on India's apparent rejection of
> OOXML,

India has not rejected OOXML by its vote. The BRM was not about 
supporting/opposing OOXML but about improving the text.

>>> As someone who apparently has inside information into the secretive
>>> BRM, perhaps you could enlighten us as to why that process was 
>>> conducted in secret.

Sometimes people need to sit down and discuss stuff without having it 
video-podcasted.

>> It was not conducted in secret. 37 countries participated in an open 
>> discussion about technical details on OOXML. There is nothing secret 
>> about that.
> 
> Then how would you describe a meeting that is closed to members of the
> public and the Press?
> 
>  "2.4  Can press or observers attend?
>      No, press and observers may not attend, and the meeting may not
>      be recorded or broadcast in any way."

Your assertion is that all meetings in ISO should be subject to public 
access and the press. I do not agree with that.

> I hope they also make their findings a matter of public record.

I think they will. The findings will eventually be a part of the JTC1 
directives and they are publically available.

> Actually I was referring to your cynicism of Roy's assertions that
> Microsoft had attempted to buy the Indian vote.

Seriously - I just didn't get it.

>> I didn't know this was a members-only party but I saw someone linking
>> to my blog and just followed the link. I then saw some erronous 
>> comments about OOXML and thought I'd help to clear things up.
> 
> Please excuse my scepticism. As a long-time Usenet user, I keep
> forgetting about Google Groups, and its tendency to link people back
> to discussions in COLA, apparently out of the blue.

:o)

>>> If it is in fact your paid occupation to search for and silence 
>>> OOXML critics, then I apologise for my presumptuousness.
>> 
>> I do not feel any need to promote OOXML. But I think we can all agree
>> on the benefits of having a qualified discussion.
> 
> By all means.

:o)

-- 
Jesper Lund Stocholm
http://idippedut.dk

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index