Forms were introduced in HTML 2.0, which in its turn does not yet contain all form elements that are present in HTML 4.01 (such as BUTTON, INPUT TYPE=”file” and OPTGROUP).

1) CSS 2, being largely a specification created without an implementation does not to this day, have a 100% implementaiton.

2) ISO C++/89, again, a spec written largely without implementation is also unimplemented in it’s entirety to this day.

It would seem that specifications derived from implemented specifications have a much better chance of having other full implementations than unimplemented ones.

Coincidentally, that’s also why ODF has been so well implemented. Without OpenOffice’s full and complete implementation, it would be unlikely that anyone else would be able to either.

I think Cay was correct. Everyone knows that Jesus was a citizen of the US of A —so help Him God— and when I say everyone, I mean many of the other citizens of US of A.

Check also the already mentioned “If the King’s English was good enough for Jesus” quote.

Remember, they save a byte by doing this.

http://www.microsoft.com/interop/letters/ChrisCapOpenLetter.mspx

As for timing, some NB’s have already decided, while others have continuing discussions through the month and will come to final positions only at the end of the months. Considering how close the vote was in September, and the complexity of the approval criteria, I don’t think anyone will have a good sense of the outcome until we see the official announcement.

Rob, we’re coming down to the wire here and it seems to me that since Microsoft is represented in most NBs (or at least their advisory groups), then Microsoft will probably know the outcome of the final vote before anyone else (even ISO). Do you know if individual NBs are going to make their decisions public before the 29th?

As an example, the Microsofties are very open about the US NB’s decision (which is not final yet, is it?)…

I seem to recall that NB’s that don’t want to change their September vote don’t even need to contact ISO, so perhaps ISO won’t know the outcome until the deadline actually passes – unless of course the received votes are decisively on one or other side of the thresholds.

I’m sure that ISO themselves won’t make any announcement until the 30th, but maybe “inside sources” will leak clues before then?

You may have written that as tongue in cheek, but if literate, Jesus was probably familiar with Latin (written Left to Right), Greek (written Left to Right, but occasionally boustrophedonic [forwards and backwards]), Hebrew (written Right to Left), and Aramaic (written Right to Left). It is indeed possible that Jesus spoke Aramaic primarily, with some Hebrew and Greek; and would certainly have come across Latin inscriptions.

I’m sure you’re being ironic, but for the sake of less-historically accurate minds reading here…

Jesus read Hebrew, which is a right-to-left language.

So this is funny because left-to-right WASN’T good enough for Jesus.

Yes, I know I’ve destroyed the subtlety in the original comment. But subtlety and engineering precision are rare bedmates.

After all, thats what we developers are mostly interested in. To hell with politics.

However, I might have missed the irony in your post.

‘right’ (OOXML) versus ‘end’ (ODF).

Obvious difference in either heritage, development, or both.

Inconsistency… all over the place.

Does any of it explain the non-backward compatibility of Excel colors described in detail here?:

http://dearmicrosoftofficeteam.blogspot.com/2008/03/dear-microsoft-office-2007-team-please_03.html