And is bastardiness encouraged on Habré?
The hysteria about OOXML seems to have affected another team member. Namely - on maniaque . What prompted him to write an article criticizing ODF - I do not know.
But what interests me the most is the question: how can, based on a comparison of OpenOffice.org and MS Office 2007, draw conclusions about the advantages and disadvantages of ODF and OOXML formats?
For reading the article there is a feeling that the person who wrote it to the standards did not look at all - only at office suites.
The article contains reasonable criticism (in ODF 1.0 there is no description of formulas and tables in presentations, but in life they are quite useful), unreasonable criticism ("Sun today allows using ODF for free, but hey, I don’t want that permission - I want consistency in principle ”- despite the fact that all RFC standards, the entire Internet and other things, are based on promises like Sun’s and complete nonsense (“ no macros! ”). The third paragraph of the article entitled “No macros!” Is especially depressing because it’s unclear what the position of ODF developers (macro standardization is a separate big job and it may be done later) worse than the position of OOXML developers (macros are nonsense not even worthy of compatibility between “MS Office 2007 for Windows” and “MS Office 2008 for Mac”).
')
Can someone explain - what motivates people to write articles on topics that they do not understand, and even beat myself with the heel in the chest and yell that "I took the standard itself as a basis, it only looked later on Wiki" against the complete absence of mentioning macros in OOXML and articles similar to this one , which explains how to relive the fact that in the 12th version of MS Office (MS Office 2007 for Windows, MS Offfice 2008 for Mac) are macros incompatible between products of the same manufacturer ? Yes, I understand - not everyone knows about this problem, but firstly - why does Google exist, and secondly - what does all this have to do with the “ODF” vs “OOXML” disputes?
Inquired as a person who writes “I repeat that this is a standard, and not a difference between OO and MS Office. If you don't understand what it is about, just keep silent. ”Can such blunders allow? Just inexpressible mind ...
If ODF is a “beam in the eye,” then OOXML is just some kind of sequoia ... Or do you seriously believe that if ECMA adds some macros to OOXML, will Microsoft, sticking the tongue out, run them into MS Office 201x? But what about the "millions of documents" with already existing macros? Or in the next version of OOXML there will be two or three standards for macros: compatible with MS Office 2007, compatible with MS Office 2008, and another for MS Office 201x? Such standards are…
But what interests me the most is the question: how can, based on a comparison of OpenOffice.org and MS Office 2007, draw conclusions about the advantages and disadvantages of ODF and OOXML formats?
For reading the article there is a feeling that the person who wrote it to the standards did not look at all - only at office suites.
The article contains reasonable criticism (in ODF 1.0 there is no description of formulas and tables in presentations, but in life they are quite useful), unreasonable criticism ("Sun today allows using ODF for free, but hey, I don’t want that permission - I want consistency in principle ”- despite the fact that all RFC standards, the entire Internet and other things, are based on promises like Sun’s and complete nonsense (“ no macros! ”). The third paragraph of the article entitled “No macros!” Is especially depressing because it’s unclear what the position of ODF developers (macro standardization is a separate big job and it may be done later) worse than the position of OOXML developers (macros are nonsense not even worthy of compatibility between “MS Office 2007 for Windows” and “MS Office 2008 for Mac”).
')
Can someone explain - what motivates people to write articles on topics that they do not understand, and even beat myself with the heel in the chest and yell that "I took the standard itself as a basis, it only looked later on Wiki" against the complete absence of mentioning macros in OOXML and articles similar to this one , which explains how to relive the fact that in the 12th version of MS Office (MS Office 2007 for Windows, MS Offfice 2008 for Mac) are macros incompatible between products of the same manufacturer ? Yes, I understand - not everyone knows about this problem, but firstly - why does Google exist, and secondly - what does all this have to do with the “ODF” vs “OOXML” disputes?
Inquired as a person who writes “I repeat that this is a standard, and not a difference between OO and MS Office. If you don't understand what it is about, just keep silent. ”Can such blunders allow? Just inexpressible mind ...
If ODF is a “beam in the eye,” then OOXML is just some kind of sequoia ... Or do you seriously believe that if ECMA adds some macros to OOXML, will Microsoft, sticking the tongue out, run them into MS Office 201x? But what about the "millions of documents" with already existing macros? Or in the next version of OOXML there will be two or three standards for macros: compatible with MS Office 2007, compatible with MS Office 2008, and another for MS Office 201x? Such standards are…
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/17456/
All Articles