When
· Naughties
· · 2005
· · · November
· · · · 21 (3 entries)

Aquamacs · To use their tagline, Aqua­macs is an easy-to-use, Mac-style Emacs for Mac OS X and they add “An Edi­tor for Tex­t, HTML, LaTeX, C++, Java, Python, Perl and more...”, fool­ish­ly leav­ing out blogs. As of the 0.9.7 be­ta, which ap­peared this week­end, this is now my day-to-day pro­duc­tion Emac­s. As far as I can tel­l, it does all the things all those oth­er Mac OS X Emac­ses do, and a few ex­tra nice things. Emacs wee­nies read on for in­struc­tions on how to give Aqua­macs a sub­tle but im­por­tant per­son­al­i­ty trans­plan­t ...
 
Atom Status · The Atom Syn­di­ca­tion For­mat is done, cast in stone, will get an RFC num­ber as soon as the appallingly-slow RFC-Editor pro­cess con­cludes. The Atom Pub­lish­ing Pro­to­col is very close to done; here­with an overview of how it works and what still needs to be set­tled ...
 
Microsoft XML News · The newswires are buzzing to­day with Mi­crosoft XML ac­tion. So, what do you want from an XML-based stan­dard, whether it’s about syn­chro­niza­tion or spread­sheet­s? First, you want it to be sta­ble. Se­cond, you want it to be legal­ly un­en­cum­bered, so any­one can use it in their soft­ware. Th­ese things are re­al­ly es­sen­tial. Less es­sen­tial, but im­por­tan­t: you’d like it to have com­mu­ni­ty in­volve­men­t, some sort of open pro­cess; and fi­nal­ly, you’d like it to be, you know, tech­ni­cal­ly good. So let’s look at today’s head­lin­er­s, SSE and MSFT Of­fice XML. Stable? SSE at the mo­ment is just some­thing Ozzie and Win­er are kick­ing around, but who knows? As for Of­ficeXML, yup, this move to ECMA/ISO will make it sta­ble. Unen­cum­bered? SSE’s Creative-Commons li­cense looks pret­ty good to me. To­day, Jean Paoli told Scoble that they’d be do­ing some sort of “covenant not to sue” over Of­ficeXML. This would be great news, and we hope that, un­like the cur­rent li­cense, it’s GPL-friendly. This is re­al im­por­tan­t, be­cause nei­ther ECMA nor ISO have prob­lems with stan­dard­iz­ing heavily-encumbered tech­nol­o­gy. Open, trans­par­ent pro­cess­es? Wel­l, er, not ex­act­ly a Mi­crosoft strength. I hon­est­ly don’t know whether ECMA will pro­vide for mean­ing­ful in­put, or whether the process’ out­come, as for ex­am­ple OASIS al­lows, is com­plete­ly pre­de­ter­mined. You have to ad­mire the chutz­pah in pre-announcing that the ECMA and ISO pro­cess­es will fin­ish be­fore Of­fice 12 ship­s, if on­ly by min­utes, es­pe­cial­ly since one as­sumes that the idea is that Of­fice 12 is go­ing to com­ply with those stan­dard­s. Re­mark­able process-management and soft­ware de­vel­op­ment skills are ev­i­dent­ly in­volved. Fi­nal­ly, are these tech­nolo­gies ac­tu­al­ly any good? As for SSE, I don’t know a thing about syn­chro­niza­tion and Ray Ozzie knows lot­s, so I’ll hold my peace. On the Of­ficeXML side I have lots of opin­ion­s, but the opin­ion that’ll mat­ter is that of ISO JTC1 (I’d guess more specif­i­cal­ly SC34), which will soon be deal­ing with two at­tempts to stan­dard­ize a so­lu­tion to the same prob­lem. Should be fun to watch. Oh yes, and since we’re talk­ing about stan­dard­s, would MSDN please get a clue!?!?.
 
author · Dad · software · colophon · rights
Random image, linked to its containing fragment

By .

I am an employee
of Amazon.com, but
the opinions expressed here
are my own, and no other party
necessarily agrees with them.

A full disclosure of my
professional interests is
on the author page.