<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: GNOME and ECMA TC45 revisited</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2007/11/25/gnome-and-ecma-tc45-revisited/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2007/11/25/gnome-and-ecma-tc45-revisited/</link>
	<description>Dave Neary's view of the world</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:22:50 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Boycott Novell &#187; One Life, One App</title>
		<link>http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2007/11/25/gnome-and-ecma-tc45-revisited/comment-page-1/#comment-988</link>
		<dc:creator>Boycott Novell &#187; One Life, One App</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2007 23:33:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2007/11/25/gnome-and-ecma-tc45-revisited/#comment-988</guid>
		<description>[...] not raised out in the open, we are destined to be locked down in another digital dark age. Although one man has attempted to implement rudimentary OOXML support in Gnumeric, it is estimated that it would [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] not raised out in the open, we are destined to be locked down in another digital dark age. Although one man has attempted to implement rudimentary OOXML support in Gnumeric, it is estimated that it would [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peteris Krisjanis</title>
		<link>http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2007/11/25/gnome-and-ecma-tc45-revisited/comment-page-1/#comment-987</link>
		<dc:creator>Peteris Krisjanis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2007 07:10:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2007/11/25/gnome-and-ecma-tc45-revisited/#comment-987</guid>
		<description>Maybe I just went off a little soon, now I remember that GNOME Foundation already clarified that it doesn&#039;t support OOXML in ISO process.

Sorry for being too harsh on this topic, it is sometimes I just feel very angry about Microsoft trying to do this.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Maybe I just went off a little soon, now I remember that GNOME Foundation already clarified that it doesn&#8217;t support OOXML in ISO process.</p>
<p>Sorry for being too harsh on this topic, it is sometimes I just feel very angry about Microsoft trying to do this.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peteris Krisjanis</title>
		<link>http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2007/11/25/gnome-and-ecma-tc45-revisited/comment-page-1/#comment-986</link>
		<dc:creator>Peteris Krisjanis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2007 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2007/11/25/gnome-and-ecma-tc45-revisited/#comment-986</guid>
		<description>I think this ONE case where all people who thinks that OOXML is relevant must &quot;shut up&quot;, as someone already suggested (or it was about opposition):
http://wayofthemonkey.com/?date=2007-11-25

Ok, it is just irony, and I am just venting off and that&#039;s nothing personal, guys. I think you rock supporting free software and GNOME project especially.

BUT....I think in this one case free software/open source community should have been very resistant to support OOXML. First of all, I think, OOXML as it is now is meant for failure (as standard, it doesn&#039;t fully answers to Office2007 output, it has numerous small but annoying errors, etc.). Microsoft knows this and I strongly suggest that OOXML 2 is already in the works. That&#039;s first. Second, OOXML can be supported, but not trough ISO standardisation process, because I think, GNOME can&#039;t support something so borked like OOXML to become ISO. I hope agree with this.

Anyway, keep in mind that people have been getting more and more angry  about Microsoft actions as trying to twist and even corrupt (or walking borderline) ISO standardisation process just to push OOXML trough. So most of shouting is not against you, but is against Microsoft, in fact.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think this ONE case where all people who thinks that OOXML is relevant must &#8220;shut up&#8221;, as someone already suggested (or it was about opposition):<br />
<a href="http://wayofthemonkey.com/?date=2007-11-25" rel="nofollow">http://wayofthemonkey.com/?date=2007-11-25</a></p>
<p>Ok, it is just irony, and I am just venting off and that&#8217;s nothing personal, guys. I think you rock supporting free software and GNOME project especially.</p>
<p>BUT&#8230;.I think in this one case free software/open source community should have been very resistant to support OOXML. First of all, I think, OOXML as it is now is meant for failure (as standard, it doesn&#8217;t fully answers to Office2007 output, it has numerous small but annoying errors, etc.). Microsoft knows this and I strongly suggest that OOXML 2 is already in the works. That&#8217;s first. Second, OOXML can be supported, but not trough ISO standardisation process, because I think, GNOME can&#8217;t support something so borked like OOXML to become ISO. I hope agree with this.</p>
<p>Anyway, keep in mind that people have been getting more and more angry  about Microsoft actions as trying to twist and even corrupt (or walking borderline) ISO standardisation process just to push OOXML trough. So most of shouting is not against you, but is against Microsoft, in fact.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Benoit Jacob</title>
		<link>http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2007/11/25/gnome-and-ecma-tc45-revisited/comment-page-1/#comment-985</link>
		<dc:creator>Benoit Jacob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2007 06:55:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2007/11/25/gnome-and-ecma-tc45-revisited/#comment-985</guid>
		<description>Hey Dave! You might remember, we met at the KDE hackfest at Wengo in January.

I like reading your blog post, showing that GNOME&#039;s position is not really in favor of OOXML as a standard, and that GNOME only gets involved out of perceived necessity.

However, I still disagree with GNOME&#039;s position! I think that, regardless of statements such as this blog entry, Microsoft will find a way to make it all sound like &quot;even core members of the FOSS community such as GNOME are supporting OOXML&quot;. Journalists often do a very poor job checking the details, and so do biased members of standardization committees. In other words, sadly, I think Microsoft is manipulating GNOME. I hate saying this! But I&#039;m really quite confident about that.

So I think that the only good way to deal with OOXML is to reject it completely, without any ambiguity.

Of course I wouldn&#039;t say that, if OOXML constituted the beginning of a sincere attempt from Microsoft to improve its relationship to the FOSS community. But that&#039;s not the case. OOXML is just the latest example of Microsoft&#039;s way of leveraging file formats to kill competition. There&#039;s no reason to be more optimistic than that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Dave! You might remember, we met at the KDE hackfest at Wengo in January.</p>
<p>I like reading your blog post, showing that GNOME&#8217;s position is not really in favor of OOXML as a standard, and that GNOME only gets involved out of perceived necessity.</p>
<p>However, I still disagree with GNOME&#8217;s position! I think that, regardless of statements such as this blog entry, Microsoft will find a way to make it all sound like &#8220;even core members of the FOSS community such as GNOME are supporting OOXML&#8221;. Journalists often do a very poor job checking the details, and so do biased members of standardization committees. In other words, sadly, I think Microsoft is manipulating GNOME. I hate saying this! But I&#8217;m really quite confident about that.</p>
<p>So I think that the only good way to deal with OOXML is to reject it completely, without any ambiguity.</p>
<p>Of course I wouldn&#8217;t say that, if OOXML constituted the beginning of a sincere attempt from Microsoft to improve its relationship to the FOSS community. But that&#8217;s not the case. OOXML is just the latest example of Microsoft&#8217;s way of leveraging file formats to kill competition. There&#8217;s no reason to be more optimistic than that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert</title>
		<link>http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2007/11/25/gnome-and-ecma-tc45-revisited/comment-page-1/#comment-983</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Nov 2007 20:21:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2007/11/25/gnome-and-ecma-tc45-revisited/#comment-983</guid>
		<description>How sad! and in the process help OOXML become an ISO standard. What are you thinking man. Why not wait until the ISO process is over for all this documentation you need. How many .docx files you recieved. NONE Unfortunately your position is naivety dressed up as pragmatism and the result is having an effect on the ISO process and to the detriment of ODF and the community at large.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How sad! and in the process help OOXML become an ISO standard. What are you thinking man. Why not wait until the ISO process is over for all this documentation you need. How many .docx files you recieved. NONE Unfortunately your position is naivety dressed up as pragmatism and the result is having an effect on the ISO process and to the detriment of ODF and the community at large.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rob Bradford</title>
		<link>http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2007/11/25/gnome-and-ecma-tc45-revisited/comment-page-1/#comment-979</link>
		<dc:creator>Rob Bradford</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Nov 2007 17:39:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2007/11/25/gnome-and-ecma-tc45-revisited/#comment-979</guid>
		<description>Dave,

Thank you for this accurate, concise and well written summary of the situation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dave,</p>
<p>Thank you for this accurate, concise and well written summary of the situation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jmbourque</title>
		<link>http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2007/11/25/gnome-and-ecma-tc45-revisited/comment-page-1/#comment-977</link>
		<dc:creator>jmbourque</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Nov 2007 17:22:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2007/11/25/gnome-and-ecma-tc45-revisited/#comment-977</guid>
		<description>In other words, &#039;Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.&#039;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In other words, &#8216;Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.&#8217;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
