The process of ISO standardization is now officially broken. Discuss.
None.
http://digg.com/linux_unix/Ubuntu_s_Shuttleworth_blames_ISO_for_OOXML_s_win
The process of ISO standardization is now officially broken. Discuss.
The process of ISO standardization is now officially broken. Discuss.
I wish that hadn't happened. There are so many things wrong that have happened relating to the standard and to the voting process. What's so wrong for MS in using ODF (or even extending it)? Not proprietary? Sometimes that company really amazes me in a bad way (less than Apple, but that's a whole other debate).
None.
Good to see the US isn't the only one suffering from corruption. Oh wait, the whole world always has. Dang.
None.
Mind filling me in with the exact significance of this? Or is this just one of those "principal" things everyone's so fussy about lately?
None.
Two links for some info on why OOXML is bad:
http://www.sutor.com/newsite/blog-open/?p=1781
http://ooxmlisdefectivebydesign.blogspot.com/
Basically the whole point of standards is to be a universal thing that companies, people, organizations can implement and therefore make a product consistent. Standards created stuff like HTML, CSS, etc and all these wonderful languages that create consistent pages. An example of what happens when there are no standards is when shit like ActiveX and Javascript happens. Basically when one company "creates their own standards", stuff like "this page is only viewable in IE6" happens.
Microsoft hates standards because basically it allows their customers to have freedom of choice. If microsoft let users choose where to put their games, apps, file formats, and so on, then Windows would be dead right now. Therefore they like closing up their formats. Unfortunately for them ODF has gained popularity from organizations and governments because of the fact its a standard and other things. If you remember if you save a doc file in msoffice 2003 then its impossible to open it in msoffice 1997. ODF allows greater backwards compatibility and freedom with its format in that sense, because its not technically owned by one company. Therefore, it saves everyone money because they're not forced to upgrade to be able to open the latest file formats that MS decides to release.
Basically they realized that people are starting to see the importance of open formats and such. So they decided to make OOXML. Basically its confusingly documented, is missing key parts, and Microsoft does not even implement their own standard properly. Basically the paperwork is just a bunch of BS to meet the minimum requirements so they can label it as a "open standard". They don't actually want people using their standard, and its highly unlikely its going to be backwards compatible with later versions.
It also has a ton of shitty tags related only to their software, so its pretty evident that this format was not designed for actual people or organizations, it was designed for their software and their software only.
http://www.sutor.com/newsite/blog-open/?p=1781
http://ooxmlisdefectivebydesign.blogspot.com/
Basically the whole point of standards is to be a universal thing that companies, people, organizations can implement and therefore make a product consistent. Standards created stuff like HTML, CSS, etc and all these wonderful languages that create consistent pages. An example of what happens when there are no standards is when shit like ActiveX and Javascript happens. Basically when one company "creates their own standards", stuff like "this page is only viewable in IE6" happens.
Microsoft hates standards because basically it allows their customers to have freedom of choice. If microsoft let users choose where to put their games, apps, file formats, and so on, then Windows would be dead right now. Therefore they like closing up their formats. Unfortunately for them ODF has gained popularity from organizations and governments because of the fact its a standard and other things. If you remember if you save a doc file in msoffice 2003 then its impossible to open it in msoffice 1997. ODF allows greater backwards compatibility and freedom with its format in that sense, because its not technically owned by one company. Therefore, it saves everyone money because they're not forced to upgrade to be able to open the latest file formats that MS decides to release.
Basically they realized that people are starting to see the importance of open formats and such. So they decided to make OOXML. Basically its confusingly documented, is missing key parts, and Microsoft does not even implement their own standard properly. Basically the paperwork is just a bunch of BS to meet the minimum requirements so they can label it as a "open standard". They don't actually want people using their standard, and its highly unlikely its going to be backwards compatible with later versions.
It also has a ton of shitty tags related only to their software, so its pretty evident that this format was not designed for actual people or organizations, it was designed for their software and their software only.
None.
Quote from name:Yoshi
Two links for some info on why OOXML is bad:
http://www.sutor.com/newsite/blog-open/?p=1781
http://ooxmlisdefectivebydesign.blogspot.com/
Basically the whole point of standards is to be a universal thing that companies, people, organizations can implement and therefore make a product consistent. Standards created stuff like HTML, CSS, etc and all these wonderful languages that create consistent pages. An example of what happens when there are no standards is when shit like ActiveX and Javascript happens. Basically when one company "creates their own standards", stuff like "this page is only viewable in IE6" happens.
Microsoft hates standards because basically it allows their customers to have freedom of choice. If microsoft let users choose where to put their games, apps, file formats, and so on, then Windows would be dead right now. Therefore they like closing up their formats. Unfortunately for them ODF has gained popularity from organizations and governments because of the fact its a standard and other things. If you remember if you save a doc file in msoffice 2003 then its impossible to open it in msoffice 1997. ODF allows greater backwards compatibility and freedom with its format in that sense, because its not technically owned by one company. Therefore, it saves everyone money because they're not forced to upgrade to be able to open the latest file formats that MS decides to release.
Basically they realized that people are starting to see the importance of open formats and such. So they decided to make OOXML. Basically its confusingly documented, is missing key parts, and Microsoft does not even implement their own standard properly. Basically the paperwork is just a bunch of BS to meet the minimum requirements so they can label it as a "open standard". They don't actually want people using their standard, and its highly unlikely its going to be backwards compatible with later versions.
It also has a ton of shitty tags related only to their software, so its pretty evident that this format was not designed for actual people or organizations, it was designed for their software and their software only.
http://www.sutor.com/newsite/blog-open/?p=1781
http://ooxmlisdefectivebydesign.blogspot.com/
Basically the whole point of standards is to be a universal thing that companies, people, organizations can implement and therefore make a product consistent. Standards created stuff like HTML, CSS, etc and all these wonderful languages that create consistent pages. An example of what happens when there are no standards is when shit like ActiveX and Javascript happens. Basically when one company "creates their own standards", stuff like "this page is only viewable in IE6" happens.
Microsoft hates standards because basically it allows their customers to have freedom of choice. If microsoft let users choose where to put their games, apps, file formats, and so on, then Windows would be dead right now. Therefore they like closing up their formats. Unfortunately for them ODF has gained popularity from organizations and governments because of the fact its a standard and other things. If you remember if you save a doc file in msoffice 2003 then its impossible to open it in msoffice 1997. ODF allows greater backwards compatibility and freedom with its format in that sense, because its not technically owned by one company. Therefore, it saves everyone money because they're not forced to upgrade to be able to open the latest file formats that MS decides to release.
Basically they realized that people are starting to see the importance of open formats and such. So they decided to make OOXML. Basically its confusingly documented, is missing key parts, and Microsoft does not even implement their own standard properly. Basically the paperwork is just a bunch of BS to meet the minimum requirements so they can label it as a "open standard". They don't actually want people using their standard, and its highly unlikely its going to be backwards compatible with later versions.
It also has a ton of shitty tags related only to their software, so its pretty evident that this format was not designed for actual people or organizations, it was designed for their software and their software only.
They're doing this not so much because its right or wrong, but because they want to show everything that they're boss. But I agree that they really shouldn't think they have a right to be functioning like that; no matter how big they are.
However, I wonder if its even possible to be "fair" now...
None.
Wait... So it's a new website scripting language for IE only?
EDIT: Oh, nvm... Stupid Microsoft, why can't they just stick with .doc or .rtf...
EDIT: Oh, nvm... Stupid Microsoft, why can't they just stick with .doc or .rtf...
None.
Well the EU is fining them out the ass for what they're doing, but sadly they still haven't learnt a thing.
Doc sucks, because every new version of word redefines the doc format. RTF is okay (not nearly as good as ODF though), it was a openish format they created back when they weren't a monopoly I think.
Doc sucks, because every new version of word redefines the doc format. RTF is okay (not nearly as good as ODF though), it was a openish format they created back when they weren't a monopoly I think.
None.
Options
Pages: 1
Back to forum
Please log in to reply to this topic or to report it.
Members in this topic: None.
[2026-6-26. : 10:31 am]
NudeRaider -- blessed innocent soul knows nothing of the strife we had before EUDs were discovered 
[2026-6-23. : 3:29 am]
DarkenedFantasies -- Probably just didn't care. For example, at some point before release, they've updated the graphics of some of the Protoss buildings (Forge, CyberCore, Citadel, Observatory, Arbiter Tribunal), but instead of properly re-rendering them with edited 3D models, they did crappy copy-paste jobs on the rendered graphics.
[2026-6-21. : 4:56 am]
Ultraviolet -- I suppose we'll likely never know, but my guess would be that they already saw it operating successfully and there was no monetary incentive to finish the original work. And the dev cycle in old school Blizzard was so hectic, it's possible it just got forgotten about after the original game got released. Plus there's an element of existing MPQ files that were packaged with the original discs becoming outdated if they updated it. And it's not like they remade the original MPQs, they just made new ones for BW specifically[2026-6-21. : 4:26 am]
Oh_Man -- so that makes me think maybe the theory they are unfinished is not true and its a deliberate design decision, coz why not finish them wen ur making brood war?
Members Online: Vrael, NudeRaider
Vrael, NudeRaider