November 21, 2007 at 21:27Why am I FOR Microsoft Office format as an ISO standard?
It was inspired by the discussion of the topic: NO to Microsoft Office format as an ISO standard.
And so, according to the point, I will immediately declare that this is my personal opinion, and I am aware of the consequences of his public statement.
1. The fact that there is a similar format is not a reason to say no at all, it was adopted a long time ago and does not take into account the current realities of documents. When did this existence of one format mean that others should not be done? This thesis should be developed, for example, point-by-point comparison of the capabilities of both formats. Not yet. The second part of the paragraph is also incorrect, since MS Office is already a de facto document management standard, so there are no extra costs.
2.Office 2007 came out a lot earlier, why should it out of the box support the future format right now? Will accept, I am sure that it will be supported immediately. In fact, this item is “from the future” - we scold the office for not supporting the format of the standard that has not yet been adopted. There is no logic to this.
3. Incompleteness of the specification may be a stumbling block, but it is not critical, especially in the part indicated in the petition. Is the current implementation of the standard complete? And what is the fullness of the standard? Are all standards that have already been adopted complete? Is the promoted alternative standard complete?
4.This is a working question, and it can be resolved in the usual way, and not by “religious war”. Is full compliance with the XML format a mandatory requirement for a draft format for the ISO standard?
5. There is no guarantee, but there is no reverse guarantee that it will suffer, which means that from several options, opponents seek to choose the worst, customizing them for their goals. Similarly, any other format may be subject to patent restrictions in the future. Moreover, the prospect of revising and reorganizing patent law in general is very likely, since it is now lagging behind the realities and in the future this gap will only widen.
6.On conflicts with other standards - in fact, the only factual statement in the entire document. It is also subject to working agreement, including, perhaps, an occasion for updating these standards.
7. Similar to clause 6. Are there any errors in open standards? This is also the subject of working coordination, and what does the presence of an error in the current versions of the Office mean when the format is not accepted as a standard, respectively, this is just one of the errors in the current version of the office, you do not need to project any error from Microsoft software into other areas. I think there are completely similar problems in the open-source developers camp (the same errors with memory leaks in the FF that have not been fixed for years and are not even fixed by developers).
8.Is the recruitment of such specialists mandatory for applying? Not. In addition, being a legislator in the office software market for many years, specialists from the relevant Microsoft divisions also gained experience sufficient to implement such a document.
For my part, it’s also a plus that the format will be supported by the corporation, in addition to the standard on both the OS and office programs. This is my personal opinion, at the same time, where _Y_ I personally consider it justified for myself, I use both open source software products and combinations with commercial ones. But in this case, I am opposed to prejudice.
And so, according to the point, I will immediately declare that this is my personal opinion, and I am aware of the consequences of his public statement.
1. The fact that there is a similar format is not a reason to say no at all, it was adopted a long time ago and does not take into account the current realities of documents. When did this existence of one format mean that others should not be done? This thesis should be developed, for example, point-by-point comparison of the capabilities of both formats. Not yet. The second part of the paragraph is also incorrect, since MS Office is already a de facto document management standard, so there are no extra costs.
2.Office 2007 came out a lot earlier, why should it out of the box support the future format right now? Will accept, I am sure that it will be supported immediately. In fact, this item is “from the future” - we scold the office for not supporting the format of the standard that has not yet been adopted. There is no logic to this.
3. Incompleteness of the specification may be a stumbling block, but it is not critical, especially in the part indicated in the petition. Is the current implementation of the standard complete? And what is the fullness of the standard? Are all standards that have already been adopted complete? Is the promoted alternative standard complete?
4.This is a working question, and it can be resolved in the usual way, and not by “religious war”. Is full compliance with the XML format a mandatory requirement for a draft format for the ISO standard?
5. There is no guarantee, but there is no reverse guarantee that it will suffer, which means that from several options, opponents seek to choose the worst, customizing them for their goals. Similarly, any other format may be subject to patent restrictions in the future. Moreover, the prospect of revising and reorganizing patent law in general is very likely, since it is now lagging behind the realities and in the future this gap will only widen.
6.On conflicts with other standards - in fact, the only factual statement in the entire document. It is also subject to working agreement, including, perhaps, an occasion for updating these standards.
7. Similar to clause 6. Are there any errors in open standards? This is also the subject of working coordination, and what does the presence of an error in the current versions of the Office mean when the format is not accepted as a standard, respectively, this is just one of the errors in the current version of the office, you do not need to project any error from Microsoft software into other areas. I think there are completely similar problems in the open-source developers camp (the same errors with memory leaks in the FF that have not been fixed for years and are not even fixed by developers).
8.Is the recruitment of such specialists mandatory for applying? Not. In addition, being a legislator in the office software market for many years, specialists from the relevant Microsoft divisions also gained experience sufficient to implement such a document.
For my part, it’s also a plus that the format will be supported by the corporation, in addition to the standard on both the OS and office programs. This is my personal opinion, at the same time, where _Y_ I personally consider it justified for myself, I use both open source software products and combinations with commercial ones. But in this case, I am opposed to prejudice.