On Fri, 2005-10-21 at 10:31 -0700, Eric Renaud wrote: > Chad Smith wrote: > > >On 10/21/05, Charles-H.Schulz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>Your discussion, although interesting from a theoretical point of view, > >>is hence more suited to lists such as [email protected] . > >>What's more, your constant chatter is hindering the work of the > >>Marketing Project. > >> > >I believe that any discussion about the OpenDocument Format (since it is a > >part - some have claimed, the most important part - about OOo / and since it > >is obviously related to the Open Source movement) absolutely belongs on the > >Discuss list. > > > > > Clearly Open Source and Open Standards find much appeal in the other, > but Open Standards are not so > directly linked to Open Source. Standards bodies and their noble > efforts existed long before FOSS. > Let's not confuse the 'Open' part: M$ has every bit the same > opportunity to follow 'Open' Standards > w/o changing their license scheme.
Quite so, and its relevant to marketing because by establishing an open standard taken up by the biggest document software user groups we remove one argument for not adopting OOo. Namely that we can't be sure when we pass files to other users that they will open reliably. It provides additional user confidence in OOo if its native file format is supported by all the significant office suites in the world. So its on topic for marketing. I think that now its probably run through most of the associated issues so it can probably terminate unless others have significant relevant things to add. -- Ian Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ZMSL --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
