[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [opendocument-users] Adding tables to ODP files
There must be better places to discuss TC stuff, marbux. Seeing you hijacking almost every single thread with technical questions for your political rants is NOT helping the original posters that simply want an answer to their specific question. Please be so nice and create your own threads instead of hijacking normal traffic. Thanks for listening. Nettiquette still matters. No matter how '95 it seems. You are behaving trollish sometimes. Jan -- Jan H Wildeboer | EMEA Open Source Affairs | Office: +49 (0)89 205071-207 Red Hat GmbH | Mobile: +49 (0)174 33 23 249 Technopark II, Haus C | Fax: +49 (0)89 205071-111 Werner-von-Siemens-Ring 11 -15 | 85630 Grasbrunn | _____________________________________________________________________ Reg. Adresse: Red Hat GmbH, Technopark II, Haus C, Werner-von-Siemens-Ring 11 -15 85630 Grasbrunn, Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 153243 Geschaeftsfuehrer: Brendan Lane, Charlie Peters, Michael Cunningham, Charles Cachera _____________________________________________________________________ GPG Key: 3AC3C8AB Fingerprint: 3D1E C4E0 DD67 E16D E47A 9564 A72F 5C39 3AC3 C8AB ----- Original Message ----- From: marbux <marbux@gmail.com> To: robert_weir@us.ibm.com <robert_weir@us.ibm.com> Cc: opendocument-users@lists.oasis-open.org <opendocument-users@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Sun Nov 01 13:09:29 2009 Subject: Re: [opendocument-users] Adding tables to ODP files On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 9:07 AM, <robert_weir@us.ibm.com> wrote: > marbux <marbux@gmail.com> wrote on 10/31/2009 05:15:08 PM: >> When do we users get that choice and power, Rob? ODF 11? >> > > ODF 1.1 improved over ODF 1.0. And ODF 1.2 will improve over ODF 1.1. We > don't need to be perfect all at once. The goal is be useful and > continually improving quality, and increasing adoption. So ignore the fact that there are minimum market and legal requirements for interoperability in regard to IT standards until ODF 13? Who benefits in the meantime? It surely isn't the users who want freedom to switch to different implementations. Bob Sutor in my opinion accurately called this situation in his Intraoperability vs. Interoperability article. <http://www.sutor.com/newsite/blog-open/?p=1260>. The vendors who share the OOo code base look from here to be the major beneficiaries of keeping the spec under-specified in every version. One-way "interop" at best for the rest of the implementors and their users. Rob, why has there never been a work item on the ODF TC agenda or ISO/IEC:26300 or ODF 1.2 that reads: "specify clearly and unambiguously the conformity requirements that are essential to achieve the interoperability?" Precisely why should the NB delegates at JTC 1 adopt ODF 1.2 as an international standard without compliance with that section of JTC 1 Directives? And why should IS 26300 maintenance be left in OASIS hands at the end of the PAS transition period in 2011, when the ODF TC hasn't even got a start on compliance with that section? I'd really like to hear any reasonable answer to those questions. Best regards, Paul Best regards Paul -- Universal Interoperability Council <http:www.universal-interop-council.org> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opendocument-users-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: opendocument-users-help@lists.oasis-open.org
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]