Re: Regarding OOXML and Microsoft patents

Hi Rui,
I just read through this whole thread from start to finish after having
gotten a little behind on my email. 

Personally the ODF versus OOXML discussion is only of secondary interest
to me, but one thing struck me through this whole debate. Rui, it is
fine to disagree with Miguel and Michael about the qualities or lack of
such of the OOXML specification. But I don't think the kind of rude
personal attacks and snide remarks you been targeting at Miguel and
Michael throughout this discussion belong anywhere. Miguel and Michael
have each done more for free software than most of us can even hope to
aspire to, and thus trying to smear them only makes you look bad and for
people to consider your arguments to be without merit.

I assume the reason this debate is on the gnome foundation list is
because there is a wish to have the GNOME foundation come out stronger
in favour of ODF. But if that is the goal I think a more professional
attitude is a better tool, as the current badmouthing do not entice me
at least, to get stronger GNOME endorsement ODF.


On Tue, 2007-07-24 at 21:34 +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 03:37:06PM -0400, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > > > > Also, why do you say the format is open? Can you tell me how Word95 does
> > > > > auto-space ?
> > > > 
> > > > 	Can you tell me how ODF lays out paragraphs or does line-breaking or
> > > > wraps text to shaped embedded objects or ... ?
> > > 
> > > Nothing in OOXML spec explains how Word95 does autospace, so how can a
> > > full implementation of OOXML respect that tag's meaning?
> > 
> > The topic is addressed here:
> > 
> >
> "Use 1.1 line spacing" this argument is funny, and was
> addressed at the Portuguese Technical Commission.
> There is an essential difference between
> SecretRuleYouCan'tKnowOfProductFuBar and
> UnderSpecifiedRuleYouCanReadSourceCodeToCompleteKnowledge
> > And it addresses in particular the issue of whether it should be removed
> > or not.
> Nice, just another repeatition the argument of "legacy". What about
> KWord? Can it support legacy formats, or is legacy only for Microsoft?
> If it's only for Microsoft (since KWord most definitely can't do it),
> then how can it be part of an open standard?
> > Of course this is my position on technical merits, others implementors
> > might have other views.   On political and activist grounds you might
> > also reach different conclusions, but I will find it difficult in the
> > future to say with a straight face in court "well, they did not specify
> > enough, so this format created lock-in". 
> > 
> > > Specially from people who work for a company that is strategically
> > > aligned with Microsoft.
> > 
> > Ah, the old guilt by association way of constructing a logical argument.
> > Always a fine choice.
> Well, pot, meet kettle. However, you are the one who said almost word
> for word what another Microsoft employee said at the Portuguese Meeting.
> It's fortunate that he didn't speak Portuguese, this is how I could tell
> you used almost word for word what he said. Do they give lectures on how
> to answer? I'm curious :)
> Rui

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]