The whole point of the article is that "complying with transitional" is bullshit. It's just the second time that Microsoft got a standards org to rubber stamp whatever crap they were already outputting. And both times they failed to even document that properly.
ECMA does that for a living but they only got away with it at ISO because Microsoft promised it was only for legacy documents and they would fully comply with strict. It looks like they're at least claiming strict conformance for output in 2013 (as the blog notes basic tesing showed they couldn't even document their own output correctly in 2010).
And you're proudly claiming that they'll phase out the production of documents they described as only for "legacy" in 2008 a mere 12 years later.
They destroyed the credibility of the ISO to maintain their format monopoly.
ECMA does that for a living but they only got away with it at ISO because Microsoft promised it was only for legacy documents and they would fully comply with strict. It looks like they're at least claiming strict conformance for output in 2013 (as the blog notes basic tesing showed they couldn't even document their own output correctly in 2010).
And you're proudly claiming that they'll phase out the production of documents they described as only for "legacy" in 2008 a mere 12 years later.
They destroyed the credibility of the ISO to maintain their format monopoly.