That's because formats for one general purpose can have variations for different needs, such as the JPEG (Joint Photographic Experts Group) standard, commonly used for lighter-weight images, and the TIFF (Tag Image File Format) specification, often employed for high-resolution files, he said.
But Hariharan disagreed in principle: "To have two standards for the same purpose defeats the idea. Multiple standards for the same application, in my opinion, is a bad thing. ... We should collaborate on developing standards and compete on their implementation."
More news, commentary, and predictions from The Industry Standard:
- Prediction: Firefox corners 25% usage share this year
- Prediction: Apple hits 18% share of US computer market by end of year
- Seven open-source Mac apps you need right now
- Analysis: The real reason Microsoft won't bring Blu-ray to the Xbox: HDi
- Special Feature: Where are they now? The Industry Standard tracks down 10 dot-coms from the Web bubble of the late 1990s
Reprinted with permission from IDG News Service. Story copyright 2008 IDG News Service Inc. All rights reserved.
Comments
"We sell software .... translators".
Nice try, Stuart, that might work with people who do not know better.
1. Microsoft sat on the OASIS board and did not join the ODF committee.
2. If Microsoft could not commit to ODF due to the ship cycle, it could very well have made a formal announcement that the upcoming service pack will include native support and the ability to make ODF the default format.
To paraphrase Churchill, "Microsoft invariably does the right thing, after having exhausted every other alternative".
Here is my opinion on Microsoft and "Interoperability":
http://ergo.rydlr.net/?p=60
-Pandu
If OOXML is "native" to Office 2007, is Microsoft guaranteeing that if I write code that conforms to that specification, I will be able to correctly parse, create, and modify Office 2007 documents? Given that the spec is not internally consistent, I think that might be a little difficult. However, maybe that's the key, given Microsoft software is never internally consistent, either. An 'E' for effort on the spin job, sir.
Christopher Swanson
> Microsoft's [...] Open Office XML (OOXML) standard,
> which is native to its Office 2007 suite
OOXML is NOT native to Microsoft's Office 2007 suite. The specification currently on hold at ISO/IEC (DIS 29500) differs considerably from the format Office 2007 uses (keep in mind the hundreds of patches added during the "standardization" process). And Microsoft will not add OOXML (DIS 29500) support to its office suite anywhere soon.
Notice that Microsoft will implement an older version of ODF. I can only presume they don't want their customers to have a real choice between MSOffice and OpenOffice. If they were fully compatible using the latest version of ODF then purchasing/using MSOffice would become largely unnecessary.
So once again we see MS trying to lock customers into their products by having ODF documents created by MSOffice look just that little bit different if you open it with OpenOffice (or some other application using a more up-to-date version of this open standard).
It's worked for them in the past with proprietary formats, it'll be interesting to see if they can pull it off with open formats.
So once again we see MS trying to lock customers into their products by having ODF documents created by MSOffice look just that little bit different if you open it with OpenOffice (or some other application using a more up-to-date version of this open standard Lift SP
It is a wonderful thing you have started."We sell software .... translators".
Nice try, Stuart, that might work with people who do not know better.Car Games
regards
This what I was hardly searching for.thanks a lot.OOXML is NOT native to Microsoft's Office 2007 suite. The specification currently on hold at ISO/IEC (DIS 29500) differs considerably from the format Office 2007 usesCar Games
regards
Post new comment