It may be true that person X speaks English better than French, but if the English is still sloppy, you will have a difficult time getting a job as a writer, interpreter, language teacher, etc. Person X will find work with a client that doesn’t mind words being mistranslated or dropped every now and then or that doesn’t mind producing written works and advertisements that are a little difficult for the audience to follow. A rival from France may fair much better within the same sector. In the end, if the French products are easier to use, the French company will grow in influence and maybe more people will learn to speak french. [Such an anology! Please don't comment.]

Person X also cannot argue that English is more consistent, efficient, whatever, than French solely using the logic that s/he speaks English better.

Closer to home, understand that Microsoft will always have an advantage over groups that refuse to follow a broken spec as close as Microsoft can. Legitimizing this broken spec will legitimize brokeness and put all competing implementations in a position to be faulty right off the bat or else go through disgusting efforts in order to perhaps match the leader of the broken spec implementations (Microsoft).

[I want to highlight one place where the analogy breaks down. Computers have not trouble switching languages if they are given the correct recipe (meaning if you run the proper app). Humans can't switch to a new language in a month, much less in microseconds. Taking this into account, it's now easier to believe that many people would decide to learn/engage in French if that would lead to better communication... all else being equal.]

To give an example, let’s say that there is an author that writes books in a horrible horrible style and in a foreign language. You memorize all the author’s works not knowing better or perhaps in order to be able to get a job that requires knowledge of the author’s works. Later, you are given the dictionary/grammar books to the language and realize what a horrible mess it was, but it is still much easier for you to relate to that work than to something of better quality. Of course, you are an exception. Most other people will not bother with that author unless their marriage depends on it (ie, please please don’t make me).

Jody, I’ve admired your contributions since you provide a leveling influence on the early version of the OpenFormula project.

You mention ODF spreadsheets and I wonder which ODF spreadsheet formulas you are supporting. Is it basically the OpenOffice.org version or are you being brave and implementing a draft of OpenFormula. I’m not clear on the status of that and which rev of ODF it will finally appear in.

Do you have any clues to offer?

IMO, this discussion is a waste of everyones time. WTF do we care if MS OOXML is easier to partially implement in Gnumeric than ODF? Just by touching MS OOXML, you are playing their pawn in the only purpose for this exercise. To kill ODF adaption and therefore the threat of Open Office and others as a replacement for Microsoft Office products. MS OOXML is freak’n poison so leave it alone.

I don’t think it’s too much to ask for open source developers to recognize this basic right, and that is why I find this article so disappointing. Do the right thing – pressure Microsoft into ensuring access for all.

-Cyrus Mack
http://www.bytesfree.org/

The ODF advocates seemed happy to trumpet[1] gnumeric’s limited support, how is MS any different, other than our OOX support being somewhat further along than ODF ?

[1] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/21450/oasis_odf_advantages_10dec2006.pdf