Visiblement thedude, pbpg et compagnie ne troll pas que sur DLFP
I've been trying to respond to the many comments by anonymous FUDsters and Fanboys on various web sites where my post is being discussed. However, it is getting rather laborious swatting all the gnats. They obviously breed in stagnant waters, and there is an awful lot of that on the web.
et par conséquent Rob Weir a été plus que largement attaqué avec par exemple un des employé de Microsoft réclamant sa démission en tant que responsable de ODF. Virons donc les personnes montrant que le boulot a été fait de tel sorte à respecter la lettre (et encore) mais absolument pas l'esprit et à "légèrement"oublier la notion d'interopérabilité. Par conséquent Rob Weir a décidé de centraliser les réponses plutôt que de devoir répondre à tous les blogs.
Et tant qu'il y est il montre aussi que la norme ODF 1.1 n'est pas respecté.
Voici le lien avec quelques morceaux choisis (j'ai vraiment pas le temps de traduire aujourd'hui désolé):
In other words, all of those Interoperability Directors and Interoperability Architects at Microsoft seem to have (hopefully temporarily) switched into Minimal Conformance Directors and Minimal Conformance Architects, and are gazing at their navels.
In any case, this comes down to why do you implement a standard. What are your goals? If your goal is be interoperable, then you perform interoperability testing and make those adjustments to your product necessary to make it be both conformant and interoperable. But if your goal is to simply fulfill a checkbox requirement without actually providing any tangible customer benefit, then you will do as little as needed. However, if your goal is to destroy a standard, then you will create a non-conformant, non-interoperable implementation, automatically download it to millions of users and sow confusion in the marketplace by flooding it with millions of incompatible documents. It all depends on your goals. Voluntary standards do not force, or prevent, one approach or another.
To wrap this up, I stand on the table of interoperability results in the previous post. SP2 has reduced the level of interoperability among ODF spreadsheets, by failing to produce conforming ODF documents, and failing to take note of the spreadsheet formula conventions that had been adopted by all of the other vendors and which are working their way through OASIS as a standard.
If we note the arguments used by Microsoft in the recent past, they have argued that OOXML must be exactly what it is -- flaws and all -- in order to be compatible with legacy binary Office documents. Then they argued that OOXML can not be changed in ISO, because that would create incompatibility with the "new legacy" documents in Office 2007 XML format. But when it comes to ODF, they have disregarded all legacy ODF documents created by all other ODF vendors and take an aloof stance that looks with disdain on interoperability with other vendor's documents, or even documents produced by their own ODF Add-in.