I cannot speak for others, but I am those people who just love to discuss the differences between semantics [and don't have a life. -- no offense taken at all]. I do hope, however, the discussion here and in my posting is interesting for those who likes semantics, like me.

Your post did make one thing crystal clear for me: How quickly did we started arguing about semantics. For god sake, it is ISO OOXML edition numero uno, possibly the thinnest possible revision of a standard available since standards have the problem of getting fat. Moreover, if one can put a bet on which revision of a standard where the semantics is not a problem, I will put my money on revision 1.

If you ask me, we are all suffering from the rush of getting ISO blessing for OOXML. Especially true in the discussion on Strict/Transitional. They were rush through after the initial comments in ISO stage. It was one of the few things that I thought OOXML did benefit from ISO process, i.e., dumping legacy rubbish in old MS documents into a temporary framework which will die out in a few years, but it looks like it was just like every other thing in OOXML: rush through without first thinking about its consequences.

I’m sorry about being so public with my mirth. The depth of analysis and introspection really did tickle me though. But I assure you I wasn’t trying to make anyone feel stupid or belittle them – just to point out the humour in there. I hope no real offence was taken it wasn’t intended. I did think quite a bit before posting this.

“You are a bit unfair when you say that we are “interested” in OOXML and we “enjoy” discussing what OOXML is for. I think it is clear that only Microsoft and its suitors are still interested in OOXML, and that nobody except Microsoft knows what OOXML is for (a pitiful attempt to extend a little bit their declining Office monopoly).”

Unfair? Maybe (See above); but the contributors were definitely “interested” or they wouldn’t have commented. As to the degree of enjoyment? Well it’s a friendly discussion at least, unlike many that happened throughout the ratification process itself. Your conclusion however is spot on.

Thanks for the link. To reciprocate, here’s one showing Desktop Linux passed the 1% milestone for the first time! Wooohoooo

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=8&sample=35

“The other quite literally had me in hysterics (ROTFL). It’s not the post so much as the comments attached to it.” I’m happy to see that you had a good laugh reading the comments.

“Apparently those few who remain interested in OOXML enjoy nothing more than discussing between themselves what OOXML is for” You are a bit unfair when you say that we are “interested” in OOXML and we “enjoy” discussing what OOXML is for. I think it is clear that only Microsoft and its suitors are still interested in OOXML, and that nobody except Microsoft knows what OOXML is for (a pitiful attempt to extend a little bit their declining Office monopoly).

I think the only interesting news about OOXML is that by producing several variants of OOXML in addition to the binary files and now ODF files, Microsoft shoot themselves in the foot and are busy to fragment their Office monopoly from the inside.

Note that they are doing the same with Internet Explorer as IE6, IE7 and IE8 are incompatible between themselves and have to share the remaining IE market share. Here are the latest USA figures for April from Net Applications ( http://marketshare.hitslink.com/default.aspx ): IE7: 44.51% – Firefox: 22.48% – IE6: 17.52% – Safari: 8.21% – IE8: 3.99%