|
| Authored by: nsomos on Thursday, June 07 2012 @ 06:53 PM EDT |
RAS jokes that
"maybe the ODF spec is encrypted and everyone refused
to give MS the decryption key"
The ODF spec sure is encrypted. The secret key is that
the ODF spec 'makes sense'. It turns out that MS has
that particular key, blacklisted, so MS can't actually
decrypt ANYTHING encrypted with that 'makes sense' key.
Plenty of folks have been willing to share that key with MS.
It is not our fault that MS has blacklisted it.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 08 2012 @ 07:34 AM EDT |
The problem is that the ODF spec is in plain English, not legalese, like a
patent.
If it had only been written in legalese, MS would have had no problem
implementing it...
</sarcasm>[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 08 2012 @ 03:52 PM EDT |
Actually, I was refering to the OOXML spec that MS itself can't quite get their
Word program to accurately follow.
And never mind all the references to things not really public (like "Do X
in the manner of Word 19xx".)
A standard that is not complete (when you add all the references to public
information/other public standards) is NOT a standard - it's a PR document.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
