Re: Regarding OOXML and Microsoft patents

[Miguel de Icaza <miguel ximian com>]

>     OOXML is for the most part a much simpler version to process than the
>     old file formats.
> 
> If you know of something else more complex than OOXML's 6000-page
> incomplete spec, does it matter?  Even supposing you are right, I
> don't see that it changes anything about OOXML.

The support for the underlying features of OOXML is already present in
the existing products.

>     > Thus we remain with the conclusion that it is very important to 
>     > campaign for ODF and reject OOXML as a "standard".
> 
>     It seems to me that the we are trying to participate in the game of
>     "club your opponent with the standard club".
> 
> Your insult is too vague to be checked, or refuted, but the reasons
> why this question of standardization is important are very specific.

Well, it was not meant to be an insult, am not sure how you arrived to
that conclusion.   But if you felt that way, you can rest assured it was
not my intention.

Interest groups have used standards to club their opponents for many
years.  Its nothing new.

> Governments around the world are interested in using an open standard
> format.  They have to decide whether to insist on a real open
> standard, such as ODF, or accept a sham open standard, OOXML.  If they
> choose the former, they are likely to move somewhat to OpenOffice.
> Otherwise they are likely to be stuck with Microsoft Office.

I guess we place different values on having a complete spec vs not
having one.  I rather have people use ODF (even with its incomplete
spec, and even with the "go read the source code to OpenOffice" is the
only answer to trick questions), but I would not go as far as saying
that OOXML is a sham just because ODF helps us advance our own FLOSS
agenda. 

Miguel.