From our perspective it would be better to aim for doing the job in ODF 1.2, even if that requires delay. We will oppose ODF
1.2 at ISO unless the interoperability warts are cleaned up. What the market requires is no longer in doubt. See the slides linked above and further presentations linked from this page, <
http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/6474/5935>. Substantial progress toward those goals would seem to be mandatory to maintain Europe's preference for a harmonized set of file formats that uses ODF to provide the common functionality. Delaying commencement of such work enhances the likelihood that governments will tire of waiting for ODF to become interoperable with MS Office and simply go with MOOXML. We may not be able to force Microsoft to participate in the harmonization work, but we will be in a far better position if we have done everything we can in aid of that interoperability without Microsoft's assistance.
As the situation stands, we have what is known in the U.S. as a "Mexican stand-off," where neither side has taken a solitary step toward what Europe has requested. We have decided to do that work via a fork of ODF; it is up to this TC whether it wishes to cooperate in that effort.
Group items matching
in title, tags, annotations or url
2More
Blake Matheny : OpenDocument Foundation to Drop ODF for W3C CDF WICD | Blogging success - 0 views
1More
Computerworld - South Africa, Netherlands and Korea striding toward ODF - Eric Lai - 0 views
« First
‹ Previous
41 - 60 of 61
Next ›
Showing 20▼ items per page