MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) wrote:
> Patrick,
>
> This is not a black-and-white issue. The editors
> have to rely on their taste, experiences, and so forth.
>
> Your concern about inconsistencies and time delay are reasonable.
> However, when different implementors have different (and somewhat
> reasonable) interpretations of the standard, the standard is likely to
> fail. The editors have to consider this difficult balance and make their
> own decisions.
>
> I am an outsider and make comments without considering the difficult
> balance. You make the call. I may continue to make comments on your
> decision, but the market will make the final call and tell whether or
> not your decision is correct.
>
> As an editor, I tend to write dense specifications. However, when I
> read specifications, I do like comprehensive specifications with ample
> examples. I certainly think that OOXML is more readable than ODF and
> that translation of OOXML will be easier than that of ODF.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
Again, Re: "I certainly think that OOXML is more readable than ODF and
that translation of OOXML will be easier than that of ODF" and was
wandering when it will all boil down to be making this comparison; re:
"The OOXML specification is 6,000 pages, which makes it a real hard to
implement for the competition. An OOXML vendor does not guarantee
anything to its competition and can sue or threaten them with patents.
The OOXML encapsulates other binary data, not clear what they are, which
the compatibility and interoperability features between different
competitors cloaks in shadow, as a result of which the competitors will
be unable to provide for a 100% compatibility with the binary data..."
please see the below attached link:
http://www.noooxml.org/argu-brief
Therefore, according to the above quote it will appear that some may be
in disagreement with you in saying that "OOXML is more readable than ODF
and that translation of OOXML will be easier than that of ODF".
Best regards,
Sheldon A. Britton
