Message: 3 Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 11:06:49 +0530 From: "Nishit Dave" stargazer.dave@gmail.com Subject: Re: [ILUG-BOM] BIS committee votes against ooxml
... snip ...
The editorial in Business Standard today again seems to speak from Microsoft's point of view, and calls OOXML an already existing standard!! As an interested group, we should write to them (and other newspapers) and strongly represent our point of view.
Any takers?
Such declarations in an editorial column is unprofessional. Pls. give link to the online version (if possible) and the email address "letter to the editor", and let's all write to editor.
-- Arun Khan
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Arun Khan knura@yahoo.com wrote:
From: "Nishit Dave" stargazer.dave@gmail.com The editorial in Business Standard today again seems to speak from Microsoft's point of view, and calls OOXML an already existing standard!! As an interested group, we should write to them (and other newspapers) and strongly represent our point of view.
Any takers?
Such declarations in an editorial column is unprofessional. Pls. give link to the online version (if possible) and the email address "letter to the editor", and let's all write to editor.
First of all, thanks a lot to Dr. Nagarjuna and others for their selfless efforts and dedication!
If someone drafts a letter to BS (wow! it indeed did write BS, no?), please post here and count me as one of the supporters when you send!
Thanks.
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Arun Khan knura@yahoo.com wrote:
The editorial in Business Standard today again seems to speak from Microsoft's point of view, and calls OOXML an already existing standard!! As an interested group, we should write to them (and other newspapers) and strongly represent our point of view.
Any takers?
Such declarations in an editorial column is unprofessional. Pls. give link to the online version (if possible) and the email address "letter to the editor", and let's all write to editor.
Here's the paragraph where they seem to be quoting a PR release from Microsoft:
ODF proponents oppose OOXML on the grounds that "multiple standards" are not
good, while Microsoft argues that OOXML — a recognised standard already — is a response to evolving technology formats in line with continual evolving technology systems. The debate appears to be a proxy for product competition in the marketplace. It is significant in part because it will influence the future success of Microsoft Office — one of Microsoft's largest and most profitable product families.
The link to the editorial:
http://www.businessstandard.com/common/news_article.php?tab=r&autono=317...
A little bit more:
An independent study by Burton Group, the research and consulting firm,
indicated two months ago that although moving to OOXML file formats involves some administrative challenges, the opportunities for improved content management and productivity outweigh the short-term inconvenience of migrating from binary file formats. Office 2007 enables people to choose from many formats, and now the Open XML Translator has enabled read and write capabilities for ODF as well.
In my mind, this reference provides enough evidence about whose brief was used as a basis for an *Editorial*. Disappointing, coming from a newspaper that has been criticizing the "stock for editorial space" business scheme promoted by some of its rivals.
On Monday 24 Mar 2008, Arun Khan wrote:
Message: 3 Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 11:06:49 +0530 From: "Nishit Dave" stargazer.dave@gmail.com Subject: Re: [ILUG-BOM] BIS committee votes against ooxml
... snip ...
The editorial in Business Standard today again seems to speak from Microsoft's point of view, and calls OOXML an already existing standard!! As an interested group, we should write to them (and other newspapers) and strongly represent our point of view.
Any takers?
Such declarations in an editorial column is unprofessional. Pls. give link to the online version (if possible) and the email address "letter to the editor", and let's all write to editor.
OK, here is the link to the editorial: http://www.business-standard.com/common/news_article.php?tab=r&autono=317797&subLeft=1&leftnm=4?
Readers can leave comments on the editorial.
I guess this is the section:
<quote> ... ODF proponents oppose OOXML on the grounds that “multiple standards” are not good, while Microsoft argues that OOXML — a recognised standard already — is a response to evolving technology formats in line with continual evolving technology systems. ... </quote>
I guess, it can be interpreted as the editor endorsing OOXML as a "standard" but fails to mention whose standards :(
-- Arun Khan
-
Arun Khan -
Nishit Dave -
Ravindra Jaju