User talk:Melomel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Opendocument rushed without adaquate formula's

I saw you removed my edit in the opendocument about the standard being rushed. Mayby because you dit not think the source was adequately neutral. However I could also cite a member of the oasis foundation itself: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office-comment/200502/msg00007.html Would that satisfy your neutrality issues ?


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.

Melomel 17:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You wrote: See the entry on Microsoft Office Open XML for an example of what is a better writeup. I can agree on that. But then again I wrote most of it in a big revision just over a few week ago ;-) .
I'll put some of this haste in stadardisation in the Standard office document formats debate section espessially to show that the EU influenced the standardisation proces which I find rather import but it was already a hassle removing half that article before as it was only pov and still is rather poor.hAl 20:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
That makes sense to me. Thanks. Melomel 00:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] See also links

The vendor lock-in and the open format wiki links are already in the article as I scanned the entire article before cleaning it up and removing them. The style quide also recommends any internal wiki links to be in the article itself. If you do not agree with the way they are put in the article then change the article (preferred) or remove them from the article itself. Clearly the See also section is only ment for links not in the article itself that have relevance also.

p.s. Sorry for putting a comment on your user page before. It should have on this page of course. hAl 18:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


OK. Sorry, I see the links now. I did not notice that those pages were linked ot from other works in the text. Melomel 23:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)