<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
On 05/04/10 17:22, Hugo Roy wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:1270484561.6572.20.camel@totosh" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Le lundi 05 avril 2010 à 17:08 +0100, Sam Liddicott a écrit :
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">My point as I first mentioned is that I cannot tell if your text is a
political document or a guide to interoperability. My point is that it
can't be both.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
This text is not a political document, nor a guide to interoperability.
This is just an explanation of why it is wrong to send proprietary
attachments with emails, because you never know if the person you send
it to will be able to read it correctly.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
However this is not true; if I send proprietary mp3 I *know* my
recipient can read it unless they took steps not to be able to.<br>
If I send open standards ogg I *know* that my recipient cannot read
it unless they took steps to be able to.<br>
<br>
It has nothing to do with "proprietary".<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1270484561.6572.20.camel@totosh" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
That is not the purpose of this text to be a technical guide. I leave it
to those who share the link to explain how to do that.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
It can't be done, as I said. I'll be called a liar.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1270484561.6572.20.camel@totosh" type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
"When you attach a file to an email, please make sure that your
correspondent will be able to read your files correctly. It is a basic
principle of courtesy. And there is an easy way to make this possible:
use open standards."
As I showed, with mp3 the correspondent likely will be able to read
the file correctly unless they have taken an active and informed
decision to not be able to. With an open standard that you mention -
ogg - this is not true at all.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Yes, this is true. If you send an ogg file, you make sure that your
correspondent will have the possibility to read the file correctly with
the software of his choice, including Free Software!
The matter of will is not the same as the one of possibility.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
I don't think these finer points of position will impress the
average man any more than the idea that DRM == choice. (As in maybe
people want to choose pay $1 for itunes track and then $3 for a
ringtone of the same track).<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1270484561.6572.20.camel@totosh" type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">With ogg, your statement "If you do so, your correspondent will have
the possibility to choose which program he or she wants" actually
becomes "your correspondent will probably be required to choose a
different program to the one they usually use" - as you showed when
stating recently that the correspondent may have to install VLC or
Firefox.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Yes, if they use software that don't handle Open Standards, which is in
most of the cases Proprietary Software we want to fight against.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
That's what I mean. This is really a political document fighting
against proprietary standards.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1270484561.6572.20.camel@totosh" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I'd like to say that your statement here is wrong, because it applies
for proprietary formats, not to Open Standards, where people have the
choice.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
It's inconvenient to most people because suddenly they don't just
have a choice, they have to make a choice.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1270484561.6572.20.camel@totosh" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
When you get a proprietary attachment: then you are require to choose a
different program that the one you use. If you get an Open Standard:
*it's up to you*.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
I can't easily tell the difference between those two positions. <br>
Proprietary => choose a different one<br>
Open Standard => it's up to you<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1270484561.6572.20.camel@totosh" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
The point of this text is to give an easy explanation of why open
standards are important, taking the example of emails. In doing so, it
also tries to raise awareness on some Open Standards such as ODF and
OGG.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Then it is a political document and not an instructional one. Is the
audience intended to be those who are already aware of the issue and
just need to have useful information gathered in once place, or is it
intended to convert and/or raise awareness among those who aren't
aware of the issues?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
The purpose is to give an easily understandable text to explain it. The
target is people aware of the issues, who want to share the link when
they get proprietary attachments.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
I don't think so, you said:<br>
<pre wrap="">>Yes, if they use software that don't handle Open Standards, which is in
>most of the cases Proprietary Software we want to fight against.
</pre>
<br>
The purpose of the document is to take advantage of the
inconveniences of proprietary formats in email to fight against
proprietary software.<br>
I don't have any complaint with this; I just think care should be
taken to choose scenarios that can be won. docx can be won because
many office users can't read docx. Ogg cannot be won because for
most users open format ogg is more awkward then proprietary mp3. So
as a political document, I think you need to make clarifying points
in relation to ogg, or anyone (you say "it's up to [me] and the
others") who follows your advice on ogg will get a black eye and you
may lose a convert to open formats.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1270484561.6572.20.camel@totosh" type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
All the rest is up to you and the others, to refuse or accept mp3 files
or not. I don't care and I do not want to discuss in the text to reject
mp3 files because they're not Open Standards: I understand it is about
convenience, but I want to say that convenience comes on both sides.
That's all.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
For sure, I don't think that such a discussion it belongs in the text,
but it is one of the questions the text raises; it is an implicit
self-contradiction in the text - that widespread standards aid
interoperability, not open standards Open-ness is just a partial
driver for wide-spreadness, not a substitute.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I strongly disagree here. Widespread standards (that's a pleonasm) aid
the one in control of the standards. Open Standards aid interoperability
because control of the standards is shared.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
I think sometimes you let idealism stand in the way of truth,
Widespread standards IS interoperability. Open standards merely
potentially supports interoperability - as the standard becomes
widespread. There are enough proprietary widespread standards, or
you wouldn't have had to write your document in the first place, I
think? <br>
<br>
Sam<br>
<b><br>
</b>
</body>
</html>