#6: You know, I've generally avoided dealing with you over the recent past because you're such an idiot without a leg to stand on, metaphorically, but today I'm feeling generous (and bored). I notice all your ranting against ODF comes from Wiki, where anyone, even MS idealogues, can edit to their hearts content. I've already debunked all these points before, yet you keep clinging to them like a baby to his blankie.
The OpenDocument ISO specification does not contain a defined formula language.
They're working on it, and have been for a while now. You see, they want to get it right instead of doing an MS and hacking up a formula language hairball that is simply mathematically wrong in many ways.
The OpenDocument ISO specification does not allow for tables in presentations.
This sounds like MS whining about how ODF doesn't support legacy MS documents, even though MS had the opportunity to help define ODF -- and they declined. And so what? if this is a critical function that people demand, it will be added in a future revision of the spec.
There is no macro language specified in ODF.
See the point above.
The ODF standard is insufficiently detailed
There's the Freudian projection. How can MS claim ODF isn't sufficiently detailed when MSXML is crawling with representations in their tags known only to MS, guaranteeing that nobody will implement MSXML except MS and its partners? They claim ODF is insufficiently detailed, yet somehow others have managed to implement it. It must be magic, I guess. Meanwhile nobody is implementing MSXML other than MS.
Basically, you & MS can whine all day about how ODF doesn't meet your needs, but nobody cares. Everyone sees the posturing, games & all-around shenanigans MS plays and that neuters any FUD MS tries to foist. Their efforts at ISO will fail miserably. MS has yet to learn that you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool everyone all of the time. Especially when you have a long history of trying to fool everyone all of the time.
|