Well, it sounds like they had real reasons to switch to IIS. You basically need it to use ASP.NET, and ASP.NET has significant traction these days and provides significant value for a lot of companies, at least over PHP. The functionality offered by Java/JSP is a lot closer, but PHP vs ASP.NET is like bringing a bazooka to water ballon fight.
That's not to say that PHP is bad or sucks. Lots of sights make great use of it, but it just doesn't offer the same level of control, supportability, and enterprise integration that ASP.NET does. C# really is a vastly superior language to PHP's c-like system, which only recently became semi-object oriented. PHP simply isn't the right tool for a lot of jobs.
That's due to the new process based model, where each tab is it's own process. Chrome has the exact same problem, and it's likely that Firefox will be adopting the same model. This allows indidvidual tabs to crash without taking down the browser.
Memory is cheap now. I have 12MB in this computer, and it only cost me $200.
Actually, that's *exactly* what they did. They stuck with the same standards as were around in 1999, and didn't improve;) You may not recall this, but in 1999, they were the browser with the best standards support. So perhaps you'd care to rephrase that;)
I hear this claim all the time, but it ignores reality. There is a huge difference between ignoring standards, and deliberately breaking them. At one point in time IE6 had the best standard conformance of any browser. Believe it or not, but it's true. However, IE6 was stagnant for many years and new standards came along (or were improved) and new browsers came along (or were improved).
IE's standard conformance did not get worse in that time, as would be expected to support your claim that MS was deliberately breaking standards. In fact IE's standard support has steadily gotten better, and in fact is the only browser to have full CSS 2.1 compatibility, and the fewest CSS 2.1 bugs. (again, believe it or not, it's true).
From the standpoint of ratified web standards, IE has the best conformance of any browser. It's CSS3 and HTML5 support sucks, but neither of those are ratified standards. I think where it's failing the most right now is in DOM support.
So, having said that, yeah.. lots of other browsers are more modern and have more support for emerging standards, and thus seem "better", but this claim that MS is "breaking standards" is complete BS. If anything, they can be accused of ignoring them, or being slow to adopt them, but they're not breaking them.
If that were true, one would expect Firefox's share to have risen significantly, but in reality, it's stayed pretty much the same, in fact it's at the exact same level as in November of last year. Further, the Browser selection screen has only been out there for 3 months and the trend of chrome and safari goes back a lot further than that.
Frankly, I'm more inclined to believe the rise is due to the rise of iPhone and Android based browsers rather than much change on the desktop.
I'm not so sure about that. I have to wonder if the explosion of iPhone and Android based phones has not contributed significantly to this. Since IE is not available on those devices, one has to wonder, especially considerging that chrome and safari account for more than 5% of the drop in IE's share. (according to the charts, firfox is less than 5%, and opera stayed the same).
What that means to me is that a significant number of people aren't switching on the desktop. The market is just growing, and those people using phone based browsers are probably still using IE on the desktop.
Dear lord, gui based management of a fleet of firewalls? You want to drag and drop things and make magic happen when you do that? Sounds pretty reckless and dangerous to me.
I don't see anything wrong with wanting to visualize your firewall rules. If done right, it could be a huge boon and might help you spot holes or weaknesses you might otherwise have missed. I don't think anyone has yet come up with such a rule visualizer, but drag and dropping seems like a great way to build rules so that the spatial part of your brain can be engaged.
If you've ever used Network Magic, it's a great tool to visualize your network. I'd love to see something similar for firewalls.
You can't find it? You can't FIND IT?! Half the messages in this thread included it. Here, let me quote a few..
I think I can be forgiven for not knowing about this work which was only announed 11 days ago
I admitted I was wrong about the 1.1 standardization attempt, but also made the point that it's 3 years late
Now, we have both agreed that my comment about "no attempt to submit" was wrong, althoug this only happened within the last few weeks
So why don't you just stop squirming around trying and either admit that, other than the part about "no attempt at submitting 1.1", that my comment is in fact accurate.
As I said, I think i can be forgiven for not knowing that OASIS has finally started working on ISO ODF 1.1, 3 years late.
I already admitted, several times in fact, that I was wrong on that point.
<sarcasm> Yeah, I can see how you might have missed that... </sarcasm>
And your quote does not support your claim of "almost exact wording". Hell, they are different points that contain a tiny cross section of similar data, namely the claim that 1.1 wasn't submitted to ISO. Certainly when Matusow wrote that it was true. And was true for 3 years. Matusow's point was regarding ODF's maturity, mine was about it's obsolescence.
Clearly, the OASIS TC must agree with Jason because they are suddenly trying to rush 1.1 through standardization, 3 years after the fact.
Well then, it should be quite easy for you to support your claim, since you claim to know who said it and when.
Now you've raised the pot by claiming my words are "almost exact wording", so let's see this "talking point". You saying so doesn't make it true.
My posting history is filled with my original opinions, not parroting any party line. Just because you disagree with them doesn't make it so.
How exactly am I trying to "deflect attention away" when I admitted, several times now, quite blatently that i was incorrect (though only by 11 days)?
Meanwhile, you have yet to acknowledge where you've been wrong, and seem to be doing exactly what you accuse me of, deflecting attention away.
Let me repeat my original statement. It's not long.
Of course ODF 1.0 is now out of date, and there has been no attempt to submit 1.1. They may submit 1.2 when it's ratified, but that could be several years yet before approval. Nobody writes ODF 1.0 documents anymore, not even OpenOffice.
Of that statement, consisting of only 3 sentences, you have latched on to half of a single sentence and ignored the rest. Yes, OASIS has now, *finally* begun work on upgrading ISO ODF to 1.1, 3 years later, but that doesn't change the fact that ISO ODF is still 1.0, and out of date. Nobody is using ODF 1.0 anymore.
Therefore, ODF being an ISO standard, as of today, doesn't mean anything because nobody is using the ISO version.
Yes, if you had bothered to actually read the thread, you would see that the post I was responding to was about the WSOP. Here, let me quote it for you.
The WSP old-hands know full well how to handle aggressive betting. They're setting it up by pretending they don't.
Try reading more than just the post you're responding to. If you pay as little attention in poker as you do to threads, I would imagine you would do quite poorly.
3 and 4 betting is not "pushing all in". How hard is it for you to understand that even if you have the best hand every time you enter a pot, you will lose a percentage of those pots, and if you're risking your entire stack on a large percentage of those pots, you will not make the bubble, much less the final table.
even a 98% favorite loses, and if you are all in too many times, you will come up short. In tournament play, especially big tournaments like the WSOP that attract a lot of agressive players, your goal is to win small to medium sized pots, not double up.
Stil, let's look at how much AA "dominates". Heads up, preflop AA wins about 77% of the time. That means you will lose 1 out of every 4 hands you are dealt AA and go all-in against a single opponent pre-flop. It won't take long for you to bust out that way.
Worst case, if you're all-in with 8 other callers, you only have a 30% chance of winning the hand, even though you have the best chance of any hand in the pot to win. Combined, though, your opponents have you beat. Even 2 callers makes AA worth a whole lot less. You're basically a coin flip at that point.
So yeah, if I'm dealt AA in the big blind, and everyone has gone all in up to me preflop, i'm going to fold it. It's a losing proposition.
Of course all this ignores the other aspects of poker, outplaying your opponent, reading an opponent, bluffing, making a pot unprofitable to play.. but that's because we're talking about agressive players that put you to a decision for all your money pre-flop. Will they lose the tournament? Almost certainly, but not before making you lose as well.
Oh, so you admit then that you simply lied and made up the claim that i was parroting a microsoft talking point.
Good to know you are dishonest and admit it.
I already admitted, several times in fact, that I was wrong on that point. But you cannot seem to admit the *several* times you were wrong in this thread, nor will you admit that my overall point was valid, which it is.
So please, stop being a child. You don't do yourself any good by being such an idiotic fool who will say anything to get his way, factual or not.
We're talking about the WSOP here, not a bunch of randon sng's where you can average your losses (and wins) out over as many games as you feel like playing. With sng's, it doesn't matter if you lose one, because you will win more than you lose, but that's not how a big tourney works.
We're talking about winning "the big one". It's not just the money, but the prestige of winning the main event. If you treat it just like a random sng, you won't even make the bubble, because I guarantee you, you will be pushed all in multiple times, and you will lose and be done with the tourney, even if you have the best hand every time you enter the pot.
Winning a big tourney like the WSOP ME is about money management as much as it is about the odds. Otherwise you go out in the first hour like Jennifer Harmon a few years back when she loses most of her stack to a lucky straight flush on the river.
The thing about Jen Harmon's hand was that she was playing against an agressive player who pumped up the pot.. had she won, and she was 98% favorite, she would have nearly doubled up, but instead he got lucky and killed her, when she shouldn't have had that much money invested that early in the tournament.
Good money management makes your opponent getting lucky largely irrelevant, because even if you lose, you are able to come back. If you let yourself get pushed in a lot, even with the best hand, you won't even cash.
But i'm sure you're one of those people that likes to tell bad beat stories.
Wrong. If you're heads up, pocket A's are a huge advantage against any other hand, but if there is more than one player you're up against, the value of aa's goes way down. And when playing against a large field of agressive players, it's very common to be all in against 2 or 3 or even 4 people. Your aces are at a less than 50% chance of winning, even though you've got the best hand.
Still, even heads up you have to decide if you're willing to put your tournament life at stake against someone that can get lucky and knock you out in one hand.
Not really. The problem is, in a tournament, you have limited options. In a cash game, an agressive player will eventually start losing and if you have enough cash, you can be there to get all your money back.
In a tournament, though, once your chips are gone, you're out. And even if you're a 95% favorite on every hand you play, if you are playing for all your chips (which frequently happens when you're up against agressive players), you will eventually get busted by a bad beat (all too often "eventually" is "too soon") and you have no way to "re-buy" and wait for the agressive player to give them back to you.
Tournament play is all about money management. Even if you have pocket Aces, it may not be wise to call someone who has you covered and pushes you all in. Instead, you want to win more smaller pots, but with agressive players, chances of small pots are slim.
Have you looked at the fees for this? A reload pack is $4.95, regardless of how much money you put in. if you put $100 on, it's 5% of the cost. That's not even beginning to count the inconvenience of having to go to the store all the time to reload the things.
Why do you insist on not addressing my primary point? Probably because you have no way to rebut it.
And that is a standard tactic, along with the goalpost shifting, of someone who is trying to to misdirect.
As I said, I think i can be forgiven for not knowing that OASIS has finally started working on ISO ODF 1.1, 3 years late. Hell, Rob Weir even says that ISO ODF 1.2 will likely be standardized before 1.1 is.
That just illustrates how late they are to this party, and how nobody would have expected it. It also illustrates that I am, in fact, correct. OASIS would not be scrambling to get 1.1 approved if my point were not correct.
The rest of my point still stands, and as of yet, you have said nothing to rebut it.
That's funny. How can one "shift the goalposts" from my original comment? My original comment *WAS* the goalpost. Let me remind you of what my original comment contained:
"Of course ODF 1.0 is now out of date, and there has been no attempt to submit 1.1. They may submit 1.2 when it's ratified, but that could be several years yet before approval. Nobody writes ODF 1.0 documents anymore, not even OpenOffice."
Now, we have both agreed that my comment about "no attempt to submit" was wrong, althoug this only happened within the last few weeks.
My comment, that is my *ORIGINAL* comment, which is not possible to have been "goalpost shifted" because it was, in fact the original point was that ODF 1.0 is out of date, and that nobody uses ODF 1.0 documents anymore, and that ODF 1.1 was not an ISO standard.
None of that has been altered by your insistence on only recognizing one phrase from that comment, a phrase i have already acknowledged is wrong.
So what, exactly is your point?
In response, you made several claims. One of which was that the ISO standard was automatically upgraded to 1.1, which is clearly wrong by your own links text. Another was that you tried to confuse Oasis ODF with ISO ODF.
It seems that you are only trying to somehow invalidate my point, which I will again reiterate, that ISO ODF 1.0 is out of date, and that ODF 1.1 is not an ISO standard, and that Nobody is using ISO ODF compliant documents. (Again, this is my *ORIGINAL POINT* from my *ORIGINAL COMMENT* and cannot, in fact, be a shifted goalpost.
So why don't you just stop squirming around trying and either admit that, other than the part about "no attempt at submitting 1.1", that my comment is in fact accurate.
Or just shut up and slink away and stop trying move the goalposts.
Don't like being proven wrong, I see. You really should learn to grow a thicker skin or stop participating in online forums.
I admitted I was wrong about the 1.1 standardization attempt, but also made the point that it's 3 years late, and will be another year late before it actually happens.
My original point, that ODF 1.0 is still the only ISO approved version is still valid, and will be for at least another 9-12 months according to your own link. And, my original point that nobody is shipping any ODF 1.0 applications anymore is also still valid.
So arguing that Microsoft is not shipping an ISO compliant OOXML application is kind of silly when nobody is shipping any ISO compliant ODF applications right now either.
Rob already points out in 2007 that submission to ISO follows the moment OASIS is done.
Then please explain why it's 2010, and OASIS ODF 1.1 was completed in 1997, and OASIS ODF 1.1 still has not become an ISO standard yet.
So obviously that is false. If it was true, ODF 1.1 would already be an ISO standard, since it's been done for 3 years. And it wouldn't be requiring and additional 9-12 months of work.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it sounds like they had real reasons to switch to IIS. You basically need it to use ASP.NET, and ASP.NET has significant traction these days and provides significant value for a lot of companies, at least over PHP. The functionality offered by Java/JSP is a lot closer, but PHP vs ASP.NET is like bringing a bazooka to water ballon fight.
That's not to say that PHP is bad or sucks. Lots of sights make great use of it, but it just doesn't offer the same level of control, supportability, and enterprise integration that ASP.NET does. C# really is a vastly superior language to PHP's c-like system, which only recently became semi-object oriented. PHP simply isn't the right tool for a lot of jobs.
Indeed. DOM seems to be the only area in which IE has consistently failed to improve. I'm hoping that will change in IE9.
That's why you should do all your development on IE, then make it work in FF and chrome. It's a lot easier to go the other way.
Yes, that's irony.
Er.. 12GB.. not MB.
That's due to the new process based model, where each tab is it's own process. Chrome has the exact same problem, and it's likely that Firefox will be adopting the same model. This allows indidvidual tabs to crash without taking down the browser.
Memory is cheap now. I have 12MB in this computer, and it only cost me $200.
Yes, but had MS stuck to standards to begin with
Actually, that's *exactly* what they did. They stuck with the same standards as were around in 1999, and didn't improve ;) You may not recall this, but in 1999, they were the browser with the best standards support. So perhaps you'd care to rephrase that ;)
I hear this claim all the time, but it ignores reality. There is a huge difference between ignoring standards, and deliberately breaking them. At one point in time IE6 had the best standard conformance of any browser. Believe it or not, but it's true. However, IE6 was stagnant for many years and new standards came along (or were improved) and new browsers came along (or were improved).
IE's standard conformance did not get worse in that time, as would be expected to support your claim that MS was deliberately breaking standards. In fact IE's standard support has steadily gotten better, and in fact is the only browser to have full CSS 2.1 compatibility, and the fewest CSS 2.1 bugs. (again, believe it or not, it's true).
From the standpoint of ratified web standards, IE has the best conformance of any browser. It's CSS3 and HTML5 support sucks, but neither of those are ratified standards. I think where it's failing the most right now is in DOM support.
So, having said that, yeah.. lots of other browsers are more modern and have more support for emerging standards, and thus seem "better", but this claim that MS is "breaking standards" is complete BS. If anything, they can be accused of ignoring them, or being slow to adopt them, but they're not breaking them.
If that were true, one would expect Firefox's share to have risen significantly, but in reality, it's stayed pretty much the same, in fact it's at the exact same level as in November of last year. Further, the Browser selection screen has only been out there for 3 months and the trend of chrome and safari goes back a lot further than that.
Frankly, I'm more inclined to believe the rise is due to the rise of iPhone and Android based browsers rather than much change on the desktop.
I'm not so sure about that. I have to wonder if the explosion of iPhone and Android based phones has not contributed significantly to this. Since IE is not available on those devices, one has to wonder, especially considerging that chrome and safari account for more than 5% of the drop in IE's share. (according to the charts, firfox is less than 5%, and opera stayed the same).
What that means to me is that a significant number of people aren't switching on the desktop. The market is just growing, and those people using phone based browsers are probably still using IE on the desktop.
I don't see anything wrong with wanting to visualize your firewall rules. If done right, it could be a huge boon and might help you spot holes or weaknesses you might otherwise have missed. I don't think anyone has yet come up with such a rule visualizer, but drag and dropping seems like a great way to build rules so that the spatial part of your brain can be engaged.
If you've ever used Network Magic, it's a great tool to visualize your network. I'd love to see something similar for firewalls.
You can't find it? You can't FIND IT?! Half the messages in this thread included it. Here, let me quote a few..
<sarcasm>
Yeah, I can see how you might have missed that...
</sarcasm>
And your quote does not support your claim of "almost exact wording". Hell, they are different points that contain a tiny cross section of similar data, namely the claim that 1.1 wasn't submitted to ISO. Certainly when Matusow wrote that it was true. And was true for 3 years. Matusow's point was regarding ODF's maturity, mine was about it's obsolescence.
Clearly, the OASIS TC must agree with Jason because they are suddenly trying to rush 1.1 through standardization, 3 years after the fact.
Well then, it should be quite easy for you to support your claim, since you claim to know who said it and when.
Now you've raised the pot by claiming my words are "almost exact wording", so let's see this "talking point". You saying so doesn't make it true.
My posting history is filled with my original opinions, not parroting any party line. Just because you disagree with them doesn't make it so.
How exactly am I trying to "deflect attention away" when I admitted, several times now, quite blatently that i was incorrect (though only by 11 days)?
Meanwhile, you have yet to acknowledge where you've been wrong, and seem to be doing exactly what you accuse me of, deflecting attention away.
Let me repeat my original statement. It's not long.
Of that statement, consisting of only 3 sentences, you have latched on to half of a single sentence and ignored the rest. Yes, OASIS has now, *finally* begun work on upgrading ISO ODF to 1.1, 3 years later, but that doesn't change the fact that ISO ODF is still 1.0, and out of date. Nobody is using ODF 1.0 anymore.
Therefore, ODF being an ISO standard, as of today, doesn't mean anything because nobody is using the ISO version.
Yes, if you had bothered to actually read the thread, you would see that the post I was responding to was about the WSOP. Here, let me quote it for you.
Try reading more than just the post you're responding to. If you pay as little attention in poker as you do to threads, I would imagine you would do quite poorly.
3 and 4 betting is not "pushing all in". How hard is it for you to understand that even if you have the best hand every time you enter a pot, you will lose a percentage of those pots, and if you're risking your entire stack on a large percentage of those pots, you will not make the bubble, much less the final table.
even a 98% favorite loses, and if you are all in too many times, you will come up short. In tournament play, especially big tournaments like the WSOP that attract a lot of agressive players, your goal is to win small to medium sized pots, not double up.
Stil, let's look at how much AA "dominates". Heads up, preflop AA wins about 77% of the time. That means you will lose 1 out of every 4 hands you are dealt AA and go all-in against a single opponent pre-flop. It won't take long for you to bust out that way.
Worst case, if you're all-in with 8 other callers, you only have a 30% chance of winning the hand, even though you have the best chance of any hand in the pot to win. Combined, though, your opponents have you beat. Even 2 callers makes AA worth a whole lot less. You're basically a coin flip at that point.
So yeah, if I'm dealt AA in the big blind, and everyone has gone all in up to me preflop, i'm going to fold it. It's a losing proposition.
Of course all this ignores the other aspects of poker, outplaying your opponent, reading an opponent, bluffing, making a pot unprofitable to play.. but that's because we're talking about agressive players that put you to a decision for all your money pre-flop. Will they lose the tournament? Almost certainly, but not before making you lose as well.
Oh, so you admit then that you simply lied and made up the claim that i was parroting a microsoft talking point.
Good to know you are dishonest and admit it.
I already admitted, several times in fact, that I was wrong on that point. But you cannot seem to admit the *several* times you were wrong in this thread, nor will you admit that my overall point was valid, which it is.
So please, stop being a child. You don't do yourself any good by being such an idiotic fool who will say anything to get his way, factual or not.
Oh, please. Some common sense please.
We're talking about the WSOP here, not a bunch of randon sng's where you can average your losses (and wins) out over as many games as you feel like playing. With sng's, it doesn't matter if you lose one, because you will win more than you lose, but that's not how a big tourney works.
We're talking about winning "the big one". It's not just the money, but the prestige of winning the main event. If you treat it just like a random sng, you won't even make the bubble, because I guarantee you, you will be pushed all in multiple times, and you will lose and be done with the tourney, even if you have the best hand every time you enter the pot.
Winning a big tourney like the WSOP ME is about money management as much as it is about the odds. Otherwise you go out in the first hour like Jennifer Harmon a few years back when she loses most of her stack to a lucky straight flush on the river.
The thing about Jen Harmon's hand was that she was playing against an agressive player who pumped up the pot.. had she won, and she was 98% favorite, she would have nearly doubled up, but instead he got lucky and killed her, when she shouldn't have had that much money invested that early in the tournament.
Good money management makes your opponent getting lucky largely irrelevant, because even if you lose, you are able to come back. If you let yourself get pushed in a lot, even with the best hand, you won't even cash.
But i'm sure you're one of those people that likes to tell bad beat stories.
Know how I know YOU are bad at poker? You don't understand what I am talking about.
If you get dealt pocket aa's 100 times in a row, and each time you go up against someone that has you covered, your tournament *WILL* be over.
Wrong. If you're heads up, pocket A's are a huge advantage against any other hand, but if there is more than one player you're up against, the value of aa's goes way down. And when playing against a large field of agressive players, it's very common to be all in against 2 or 3 or even 4 people. Your aces are at a less than 50% chance of winning, even though you've got the best hand.
Still, even heads up you have to decide if you're willing to put your tournament life at stake against someone that can get lucky and knock you out in one hand.
Not really. The problem is, in a tournament, you have limited options. In a cash game, an agressive player will eventually start losing and if you have enough cash, you can be there to get all your money back.
In a tournament, though, once your chips are gone, you're out. And even if you're a 95% favorite on every hand you play, if you are playing for all your chips (which frequently happens when you're up against agressive players), you will eventually get busted by a bad beat (all too often "eventually" is "too soon") and you have no way to "re-buy" and wait for the agressive player to give them back to you.
Tournament play is all about money management. Even if you have pocket Aces, it may not be wise to call someone who has you covered and pushes you all in. Instead, you want to win more smaller pots, but with agressive players, chances of small pots are slim.
Have you looked at the fees for this? A reload pack is $4.95, regardless of how much money you put in. if you put $100 on, it's 5% of the cost. That's not even beginning to count the inconvenience of having to go to the store all the time to reload the things.
I asked you to point to the supposed "microsoft talking point", not what you claim is one.
Can you find anywhere on the web where Microsoft is claiming what I did? No? Then how can you claim i'm just parotting the Microsoft party line?
Face it, you just make shit up as you go along.
Which talking point would that be? Can you point anyone to it?
I didn't think so.
More wiggling noted.
Why do you insist on not addressing my primary point? Probably because you have no way to rebut it.
And that is a standard tactic, along with the goalpost shifting, of someone who is trying to to misdirect.
As I said, I think i can be forgiven for not knowing that OASIS has finally started working on ISO ODF 1.1, 3 years late. Hell, Rob Weir even says that ISO ODF 1.2 will likely be standardized before 1.1 is.
That just illustrates how late they are to this party, and how nobody would have expected it. It also illustrates that I am, in fact, correct. OASIS would not be scrambling to get 1.1 approved if my point were not correct.
The rest of my point still stands, and as of yet, you have said nothing to rebut it.
That's funny. How can one "shift the goalposts" from my original comment? My original comment *WAS* the goalpost. Let me remind you of what my original comment contained:
"Of course ODF 1.0 is now out of date, and there has been no attempt to submit 1.1. They may submit 1.2 when it's ratified, but that could be several years yet before approval. Nobody writes ODF 1.0 documents anymore, not even OpenOffice."
Now, we have both agreed that my comment about "no attempt to submit" was wrong, althoug this only happened within the last few weeks.
My comment, that is my *ORIGINAL* comment, which is not possible to have been "goalpost shifted" because it was, in fact the original point was that ODF 1.0 is out of date, and that nobody uses ODF 1.0 documents anymore, and that ODF 1.1 was not an ISO standard.
None of that has been altered by your insistence on only recognizing one phrase from that comment, a phrase i have already acknowledged is wrong.
So what, exactly is your point?
In response, you made several claims. One of which was that the ISO standard was automatically upgraded to 1.1, which is clearly wrong by your own links text. Another was that you tried to confuse Oasis ODF with ISO ODF.
It seems that you are only trying to somehow invalidate my point, which I will again reiterate, that ISO ODF 1.0 is out of date, and that ODF 1.1 is not an ISO standard, and that Nobody is using ISO ODF compliant documents. (Again, this is my *ORIGINAL POINT* from my *ORIGINAL COMMENT* and cannot, in fact, be a shifted goalpost.
So why don't you just stop squirming around trying and either admit that, other than the part about "no attempt at submitting 1.1", that my comment is in fact accurate.
Or just shut up and slink away and stop trying move the goalposts.
Don't like being proven wrong, I see. You really should learn to grow a thicker skin or stop participating in online forums.
I admitted I was wrong about the 1.1 standardization attempt, but also made the point that it's 3 years late, and will be another year late before it actually happens.
My original point, that ODF 1.0 is still the only ISO approved version is still valid, and will be for at least another 9-12 months according to your own link. And, my original point that nobody is shipping any ODF 1.0 applications anymore is also still valid.
So arguing that Microsoft is not shipping an ISO compliant OOXML application is kind of silly when nobody is shipping any ISO compliant ODF applications right now either.
Rob already points out in 2007 that submission to ISO follows the moment OASIS is done.
Then please explain why it's 2010, and OASIS ODF 1.1 was completed in 1997, and OASIS ODF 1.1 still has not become an ISO standard yet.
So obviously that is false. If it was true, ODF 1.1 would already be an ISO standard, since it's been done for 3 years. And it wouldn't be requiring and additional 9-12 months of work.