ISO/IEC 26300 versus OOXML
Just in light of Microsoft's claims that OOXML is "needed" as a standard/format because OOXML has better support for legacy formats. While many have pointed out the flaws in this argument, not least of which that it is the application and not the format that supports (understands and can therefore translate) legacy formats, few have come up with such a nice analogy to illustrate the lack of need for OOXML:
"It's rather like a transition between VHS videotapes and DVDs.
Microsoft Office is like a VHS tape deck. OpenOffice.org (and Lotus Symphony, and Lotus Notes, and 'KOffice', and Sun StarOffice'[etc. etc. etc.]) are like DVD players.
If you've got a pile of videos on VHS, and you want to move to a DVD player, well, there are services which will transcribe. But I don't think it's very likely that a VHS tape deck should have a DVD writer in it. Nor that a DVD player should have a VHS reader.
New stuff, ISO 26300. Interoperable."
From a comment on this blog entry (I was not the commenter!): Minutes by Leif Lodahl.
Posted at 09:09AM Jan 21, 2008 by Chris Puttick in General | Comments[1]
Posted by Lucian on January 21, 2008 at 01:24 PM GMT #