User talk:HAl

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, HAl, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --soumসৌমোyasch 08:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: the "rushing" comment ODF:

Personally I think the entire discussion of formulas is out of place in the Standardization section. See the entry on Microsoft Office Open XML for an example of what is a better writeup, IMHO. Keep the Standardization section to the basics of what, when and where, the type of summary info that should be upfront and easily found in an encylopedia entry. Put the debates or other side issues in their own section.

Also, a comment by a member of OASIS does not necessarily reflect OASIS policy or even the majority view of the ODF TC. It is just one person's opinions at one point in time. The use of the word "rushed" needs to be subtantiated, otherwise it is merely opinion. Since I can also point to opinions on the web that say that ODF was not rushed, I think we'll both need to acknowledge that this is a debatable point, and either both sides of the argument should be presented, or an unadorned statement of the facts presented.

If we want to state the facts, we could mentioned when the ODF specification started standardization (December 2002), when comments on the lack of spreadsheet formulas were brought up (February 2005) and when the OASIS standard was issued (May 2005). Was this a sign of rushing? Or was it merely the case that it was too late in the ODF 1.0 process to take on this additional work? It is certainly possible for the later to be true without the former. 2+ years for a standard is not typically evidence of rushing.


In any case, my vote would be to move this item to its own section, or perhaps to Standard office document formats debate.

Regards,

Melomel 17:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] See Also

"See also

Put here, in a bulleted list, other articles in the Wikipedia that are related to this one. ..."

[edit] OpenDocument comparison Rev.

Sorry for misspelling your name, should have spelled Hal (Hitchhikers guide I believe?). I indeed came from tweakers.net. I saw Minion O' Bill reverted your changes some time ago, and he asked you to keep it that way. Therefore I reverted again. You re-reverted it bringing back in your contributions. That's okay with me, though I will ask someone else to look at it, since I don't have that neutral POV anyway. Nonetheless, I believe Minion 'O Bill warned you, again referencing to the MS page will be considered as spam.

84.25.82.152 12:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Minion O bill removed licensing info on MS because according to him it was only about the current Office 2003 and not about the OOXML format allthough the cited text clearly states that the covenant is for future formats as well. This is also evident in the cited texts from other sources. They are MS sources but that is logical as they are the format creators.
Minion is just a serious anti MS writer. He even bothered to edit the Vista disambuiguity page to move the reference to Windows Vista lower on the page for some obscure other application. I can't really take anyone who does that seriously on MS related topics. hAl 13:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
It seems strange being objective by quoting MS sources to me, and then calling someone else an anti-MS writer. I believe Wikipedia asks not to attack someone personally, and calling someone anti-MS looks personally to me. Anyway, since I can't really tell what should happen, I suggest we find some third objective person to look at this.
(Same user as IP 84.25.82.152)
193.173.25.210 17:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
it will be fine if someone adds valid up to date licensing info about OOXML instead of just removing what is there at the moment which is the most recent I could find.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/a/l/User_talk%7EHAl_a3cd.html"