Domain: osrin.net
Stories and comments across the archive that link to osrin.net.
Comments · 9
-
Re:Most important questionYou're not going into enough detail to actually form a reasonable opinion here. Microsoft Office 2007 SP2 does not comply with ODF 1.1 despite Microsoft claiming otherwise. Despite the claims of ODF 1.1 says of spreadsheet formulas that "Addresses in formulas start with a "[" and end with a "]"" but Microsofts implementation doesn't do that.
The biggest reason why Microsoft Office 2007's ODF implementation is inexcusable is that their previous plugin, the CleverAge plugin, was better. The previous CleverAge plugin along with every other ODF implementation supported OpenFormula and deemed it stable enough to implement, and lots of standards like HTML5 are implemented in draft form.
HTML can <embed> MS SilverLight... so pages comply with W3C HTML but the page isn't as interoperable as it should be. Microsofts native ODF really went out of their way to make a broken standard and to create confusion around ODF compliance.
-
A video from 1961
The video I have linked in the post below will give you an idea of how quickly we'll solve this problem...
http://osrin.net/2008/12/the-rapid-deployment-of-electronic-health-records/
-
Here is my take...
... it really has nothing to do with Gates moving on, MS learning how to understand OSS and work with it has been happening for a while.
-
Given that IS29500...
... didn't exist when the document used for the test was saved, this should not really be much of a surprise.
http://osrin.net/2008/04/22/office-2007-is29500-conformance/ -
Re:Isn't the whole idea of a standard
> This "standard" is completely irrelevant as a standard. No one, absolutely no one, is going to implement it. Not even Microsoft.
BS: Microsoft has pledged to support it in public. So assuming that the OpenOffice implementation of OOXML continues, it will support it too.
> No company is going to be allowed to implement it and become a competitive threat to Microsoft. Microsoft will shut them down with Patent Violations.
Again BS: The OSP pretty much crushes that arguement. Even the main point in the SFLC anaylsis about future versions has been addressed.
Your core arguements seem to be strictly Proof by Assertion -
Re:A majority of participants voted against it!
I'm not so sure... http://osrin.net/2008/04/01/norway-and-germany-there-are-no-irregularities, see point 8 on the comments directly from Standards Norge.
-
Re:Basically...
Standards Norge have responded - Oliver Bell has an english translation of their PR - http://osrin.net/2008/04/01/norway-and-germany-there-are-no-irregularities/
-
Who is voting yes to OOXML?
Denmark
http://www.ds.dk/
Poland
http://polishlinux.org/poland/no-consensus-over-ooxml-in-poland-yet/
Germany
http://www.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.heise.de%2Fnewsticker%2FDIN-sagt-Ja-zur-ISO-Stan
dardisierung-von-OOXML--%2Fmeldung%2F105657&langpair=de|en&hl=sv&ie=UTF8
South Korea
http://osrin.net/2008/03/28/south-korea-votes-approve-for-isoiec-dis29500/
Norway
http://www.idg.no/computerworld/article92563.ece
I think the USA and the UK are also voting yes, but I don't have any links for those. -
South Korea appears to be voting 'yes'
That is what this article seems to suggest:
http://osrin.net/2008/03/28/south-korea-votes-approve-for-isoiec-dis29500/