|| On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:17:19 +0000 || Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com wrote:
That sentence is based on the assumption that adding OpenXML support to OpenOffice.org is an improvement of OpenOffice.org.
ah> Not really.
ah> Adding extra file format compatibility is pretty obviously an ah> improvement to an application.
This brings to mind the old quote
"For every complex problem there is a simple and wrong solution."
Once again: I think that most of these points were made in the articles, but the reason Microsoft tries to market OpenXML as an "alternative standard" to ODF is precisely that more and more governments around the world start to mandate Open Standards.
The strategy to declare OpenXML "another accepted standard" aims at maintaining their ability to keep OpenOffice.org and other programs out of the market.
Once OpenOffice.org has rudimentary OpenXML support, because it is the flagship of ODF, Microsoft will turn around to governments and say: See, you can stay with Microsoft office, even OpenOffice.org supports the format, but look, in OO.org the graphics are so broken, and these little images don't display, at all. So stay with us.
Supporting OpenXML means keeping the situation as it is now, while I believe we have a real chance to improve it -- there is a strong drive to allow more competition, which is backed by pretty much everyone but Microsoft.
Regards, Georg