Why am I behind the Microsoft Office format as an ISO standard
Inspired by the discussion of the topic: NO format Microsoft Office as an ISO standard
And so, on the point, and 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, it was adopted a long time ago and does not take into account the modern realities of documents. When did the existence of one format mean that others could not be done? This thesis should be developed, for example, point by point to compare the possibilities of both formats. This is not yet. The second part of the clause is also incorrect, since MS Office is already a de facto workflow standard, so there are no special additional costs.
')
2. Office 2007 came out much earlier, why should it support out of the box right now in a future format? Will accept, sure that will immediately be supported. In fact, this item is “from the future” - we criticize the office for not supporting the standard format, which has not yet been adopted. There is no logic in it.
3. Incompleteness of the specification can 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 are already accepted 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 a “religious war.” Is full compliance with the XML format a mandatory requirement for the draft format for the ISO standard?
5. There is no guarantee, but then there is no reverse guarantee that it will suffer, which means that out of several options, opponents tend to choose the worst, driving them to fit 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 reality and this gap will only increase in the future.
6. On conflicts with other standards, in fact, the only factual statement in the whole document. It is also the subject of a working agreement, including, possibly, a reason for updating these standards.
7. Similar to clause 6. There are no errors in open standards? This is also a matter of working coordination, and there is an error in the current versions of the Office, when the format is not accepted as standard, respectively, it is just one of the errors of the current office version, you do not need to project any error from the Microsoft software to other areas. I think there are absolutely similar problems in the open-source developer’s camp (the same errors with memory leakage in FF that have not been fixed for years or even fixed by developers).
8. Is engaging such specialists required to submit an application? Not. In addition, being for many years a lawmaker in the office software market, specialists from the relevant Microsoft departments have also gained enough experience to implement such a document.
For my part, another plus is that the format will be supported by the corporation, besides the standard both on the OS and on the office programs. This is my personal opinion, at the same time, where _I_ personally consider myself justified, I use both open source software and combinations with commercial ones. But in this case, I oppose a prejudiced attitude.
And so, on the point, and 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, it was adopted a long time ago and does not take into account the modern realities of documents. When did the existence of one format mean that others could not be done? This thesis should be developed, for example, point by point to compare the possibilities of both formats. This is not yet. The second part of the clause is also incorrect, since MS Office is already a de facto workflow standard, so there are no special additional costs.
')
2. Office 2007 came out much earlier, why should it support out of the box right now in a future format? Will accept, sure that will immediately be supported. In fact, this item is “from the future” - we criticize the office for not supporting the standard format, which has not yet been adopted. There is no logic in it.
3. Incompleteness of the specification can 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 are already accepted 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 a “religious war.” Is full compliance with the XML format a mandatory requirement for the draft format for the ISO standard?
5. There is no guarantee, but then there is no reverse guarantee that it will suffer, which means that out of several options, opponents tend to choose the worst, driving them to fit 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 reality and this gap will only increase in the future.
6. On conflicts with other standards, in fact, the only factual statement in the whole document. It is also the subject of a working agreement, including, possibly, a reason for updating these standards.
7. Similar to clause 6. There are no errors in open standards? This is also a matter of working coordination, and there is an error in the current versions of the Office, when the format is not accepted as standard, respectively, it is just one of the errors of the current office version, you do not need to project any error from the Microsoft software to other areas. I think there are absolutely similar problems in the open-source developer’s camp (the same errors with memory leakage in FF that have not been fixed for years or even fixed by developers).
8. Is engaging such specialists required to submit an application? Not. In addition, being for many years a lawmaker in the office software market, specialists from the relevant Microsoft departments have also gained enough experience to implement such a document.
For my part, another plus is that the format will be supported by the corporation, besides the standard both on the OS and on the office programs. This is my personal opinion, at the same time, where _I_ personally consider myself justified, I use both open source software and combinations with commercial ones. But in this case, I oppose a prejudiced attitude.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/16525/
All Articles