Microsoft XML Fast-Tracked Despite Complaints

Lars Skovlund writes "Groklaw reports that the Microsoft Office XML standard is being put on the fast track in ISO despite the detailed complaints from national standards bodies. The move seems to be the decision of one person, Lisa Rachjel, secretariat of the ISO Joint Technical Committee, according to a comment made by her."

Comments

hmm

[mastershake_phd]

If people didnt jump on whatever the newest Microsoft software is they wouldnt get away with this sort of thing.

Re:hmm

[Planesdragon]

If people didnt jump on whatever the newest Microsoft software is they wouldnt get away with this sort of thing.

What? You mean that there should be some drawn-out process to keep the most-commonly-used XML format from being standardized?

MS's XML should be marked and tagged as standard ASAP -- that way, when Office 2010 rolls around, OpenOffice 3.0 can simply say "we put out docs according to MS's standard. If it doesn't work, it's THEIR fault."

Re:hmm

[DavidKlemke]

That may be true, but there was strong opposition to the OOXML standard by many countries. In fact, when the standard went up for comment the ISO received more participation from commenting countries then it has seen with previous standards. Although Microsoft has actually created a competitor to ODF (which from an archival viewpoint is a good thing, the more ways we have of doing the same thing means a bigger safety net for our data) it's done so in a pretty ass backwards sort of way. This move to fast track it makes me uneasy, as there are some huge glaring holes in the standard which need to be fixed before it can really be declared as a good standard.

Re:hmm

[mollymoo]

MS's XML should be marked and tagged as standard ASAP -- that way, when Office 2010 rolls around, OpenOffice 3.0 can simply say "we put out docs according to MS's standard. If it doesn't work, it's THEIR fault."

The problem with Microsoft's "standard" is that in many places it says things like "do what Word 5.0.3 does in when in double-line-spaced mode" without saying just what that means. The specification for Microsoft's XML format is not in the standards documents, it exists in only one place - the source code for Microsoft Word. Making a fully compliant implementation of Microsoft's XML format when you haven't got access to the Word codebase is therefore virtually impossible.

Re:hmm

[MoogMan]

I think you miss the point.

{If|When} "Open XML" gets set as a standard, Microsoft will claim that Office is "standards-based and open". Which, by definition, it would be.

Open Office et. al will implement ODF. It will also implement a partial version of Open XML - as best as it possibly can do, given the vague nature of some of the Open XML implementation points.

Microsoft Office will only implement Open XML.

Now, which format is a consumer to choose? Obviously Open XML. Put simply, we'll be no closer to a real-world, workable word document standard than we are now.

Open Office will say "we tried to implement the standard as best as we could". Normal consumers will hear essentially "Open Office wont open my documents properly".

Re:hmm

[Zelos]

You will, of course, only see those tags in files converted from Word 5.0.3 documents.

Re:hmm

[Eivind]

That is true. It is however less of a problem for a program merely wishing to *write* a document that MS-Word will (well, let's be realistic -- SHOULD) interpret correctly.

True, there is a tag for "Do Line-spacing the way Word version x.y.z used to do it on a Mac" (with no further specification what exactly that was), but if you're just *writing* the files there's a simple solution to that: don't use that tag at all. (it exists only for backwards compatibility anyway, I very much doubt that it's possible to make a new version of Word write that tag if you're starting from a clean new document)

If you need to *read* the stuff though, you're out of luck, because you can bet someone is gonna complain if you're able to correctly read only 99% of all Ms-office documents, despite the documents themselves being the insane ones.

Re:hmm

[KingMotley]

All 6 of the complaints were about technical issues. The 1-month fast track approval is not the correct place to raise those types of issues. The only thing that can keep something from getting fast track approval is an objection that highlights why it conflicts with standard that has already been approved. None of the 6 complaints did this, so it was pushed through.

They can of course, raise the same complaints during the 5 month ballot process, which is the correct time to raise such concerns. Although, 6 out of 100+ is still a fairly small number.

Re:hmm

[burner]

What's keeping it from being standardized? It turns out that the standards written are grossly inadequate for third parties to implement. If Microsoft authored a better specification, nobody would care.

Not to mention, what does it matter if it's "standardized" (and by that I assume you mean accepted as a ISO standard)? It's already implemented in the next version of Office, which in a very real sense, makes it a defacto standard. What this is about is getting the format accepted by ISO. And the only reason to fast track it is so that Microsoft can use this as a marketing tool against opendocument and openoffice.

Make no mistake, all other reasons for standardization require a "drawn out" process involving interested stakeholders, such as the openoffice community as well as businesses that use office software. This ensure the standard is actually useful to third parties, making the format increase, rather than decrease interoperability.

Re:hmm

[burner]

(which from an archival viewpoint is a good thing, the more ways we have of doing the same thing means a bigger safety net for our data)

Care to explain? Having multiple formats just means that you're more likely to pick the wrong format and end up without access to your data from new products in the future. Having multiple ways of doing the same thing only fractures the community doing the thing.

Re:hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft only certifies software that fully implements the standard and when it's a Microsoft standard no certification means no deal.

Re:hmm

[lahvak]

Is there any way to guarantee that? I mean in the standard itself?

Re:hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you seen any ISO 9001 certificates?

The idea of going ISO is to be able to certify and advertise you compliance.

There is no 97% compliance certificate!

Re:hmm

[init100]

What this is about is getting the format accepted by ISO.

So that Microsoft can go to those governments that have declared that they will only use document formats that ate international standards and say "Look, look, ISO standard" (pointing to Open XML). "Now you can stay with safe Microsoft instead of going for that strange communist OpenOffice.org".

Re:hmm

[erroneus]

An all-new format that supports backward compatibility with an older and supposedly unrelated format? Are you reading what you're writing?

Backward compatibility shouldn't enter the specification at all. It's the seemingly endless instances of backward compatibility support that has made Microsoft's stuff the resource-sucking pig that it is today. Here, they have an opportunity to divest themselves from all that legacy crap and get neat, fresh and unified. They just keep playing the same endless games they have always played because they worked yesterday.

Part of the intent for the recent data standards movement is to simplify and clarify. Supporting legacy junk shouldn't really be much of a factor at all.

Re:hmm

[Zelos]

Not directly, although it does say: "...and is maintained only for compatibility with existing documents from that application." In the few hundred Office 2007 documents I've examined so far, I haven't seen anything that isn't implementable from the standard.

Re:hmm

[jawtheshark]

Actually, if Microsoft would have done it right, both loading and writing would be easy. Imagine Microsoft Word 2007 detecting a Mac Word 5.3 document (binary, evidently) that has odd margin handling. Instead of writing a tag "emulate-word-5-3-mac", it would write "margin="-77,3pt"

If you do this, the output and thus target format would just have the clean information for displaying. No "just do as if you are Word on Mac", but "compensate margins -77,3pt". That this was because it was created on a Mac or that the user specified that, has no importance...

Re:hmm

[Samari711]

Funny, I thought this standard conflicted with the ISO standard for time because it incorrectly treats 1900 as a leap year in spreadsheets.

Re:hmm

[jbengt]

You will, though, see several other instances of such tags, for various versions of Word, Wordperfect, some of which are still in common use.

Re:hmm

[jbengt]

The MS Word program probably does not handle it in such a simple, linear fashion. So, defining those tags would probably mean MS would have to reverse engineer their own program, rather than just memory-dumping it.

Re:hmm

[Darundal]

When it by no means is a standard others can implement without their blessing, then yes. There should be at minimum a drawn-out process to keep the most-commonly-used XML format from being accepted as a standard, at least until it is an actual standard...

Re:hmm

[pallmall1]

Although, 6 out of 100+ is still a fairly small number.

There are only 30 members of the committee. From Computerworld:

Rajchel wrote that she decided to move Open XML forward after consulting with staff at the International Technology Task Force. She did not mention that the 6,000-page proposal, submitted by another standards body, Ecma International, had garnered comments and criticism from 20 out of the 30 countries sitting on the JTC-1 committee.

ISO -- the best standard money can buy.

Re:hmm

[harlows_monkeys]

The problem with Microsoft's "standard" is that in many places it says things like "do what Word 5.0.3 does in when in double-line-spaced mode" without saying just what that means

Isn't that just for use when converting documents from Word 5.0.3 format? New documents won't use that tag.

Compare to ODF, where key formatting parameters are left up to the application, so that if you had two completely independent ODF implementations, written just from the "standard", documents produced by one would would probably look quite different when read by the other.

Re:hmm

[LO0G]

Apparently the standard for "Conflict" was "Renders another standard unimplementable".

As best as I can see, the fact that OOXML treats 1900 as a leap year doesn't prevent another standard from treating 1900 as a non leap year.

The contradictions phase wasn't intended to resolve issues, but to highlight grotesque flaws. Apparently they decided that the date issue (and the other issues brought up) weren't grotesque flaws.

Go figure.

Re:hmm

[miguel]

{If|When} "Open XML" gets set as a standard, Microsoft will claim that Office is "standards-based and open". Which, by definition, it would be.

Open Office et. al will implement ODF. It will also implement a partial version of Open XML - as best as it possibly can do, given the vague nature of some of the Open XML implementation points.

OOXML is already a standard (an ECMA one, but a standard), what this process will do is turn it into an ISO standard as well.

That being said, OOXML is vastly better specified than ODF is. As I pointed out on my blog some time ago, it would not be possible to build a spreadsheet today using the ODF specification, too many details would have to be extracted from either the OOXML spec (oh, the irony!) or an existing implementation that was based on public information like the Excel documentation (Gnumeric, Open Office).

Am sure that OOXML could still use some work and do more along the lines of having the specification be as clear as possible, but if your point of reference is ODF then the criticism is a bit like the elephant that criticized animals with big ears.

Miguel.

Re:hmm

[bersl2]

That being said, OOXML is vastly better specified than ODF is. As I pointed out on my blog some time ago, it would not be possible to build a spreadsheet today using the ODF specification, too many details would have to be extracted from either the OOXML spec (oh, the irony!) or an existing implementation that was based on public information like the Excel documentation (Gnumeric, Open Office). Sigh...

Re:hmm

[AJWM]

As I pointed out on my blog some time ago, it would not be possible to build a spreadsheet today using the ODF specification,

Well, that's because ODF doesn't incorrectly specify 1900 as a leap year. Start throwing broken bits like that into the mix and it's no surprise that the MSOOXML "spec" is over 6000 pages (and still incomplete).

Re:hmm

[flakier]

Even funnier that these highly spun articles keep making it to the front page... One might start to believe that the OSS community has a bigger marketing budget than Microsoft does! Oh that's right I forgot, ther is no real OSS community anymore. It's all wrapped up in the whims of IBM, SUN, etc... politics.

Has everyone forgotton that ODF was fast-tracked with no complaint period at all? I'm amazed that something as woefully incomplete and ambiguous as ODF is already a standard and no one seems to give a good rat's ass about that. That fact certainly isn't getting any press that I can see. ODF isn't any more "community designed" than OOXML. It's simply a partialy (and hastily) documented, previously application specific markup that happens to be plain text, released under a perpetually gratis license. It simply enjoys a slight headstart over OOXML.

It's just all about beating MS at any cost (those evil mother F***ers, ruining our geeky free world!). Who gives a F*** about a standard's technical competance or compeating on technical merit? The funniest thing is the "high morals" of ODF. Yet, ODF is just as patented and closed as OOXML. If you dare point out any technical deficiancies in ODF you won't see anyone say, "why you're right, let's fix it!" Nope, all you'll see is some half assed and ignorent attack on OOXML lobbed back over the fence.

I'd love to hate Microsoft as much as the next person, but all I see are well reasoned and technical responses in the face of the tantrums in the ODF preschool.

Re:hmm

[darkonc]

Backward compatibility shouldn't enter the specification at all. Backward compatibility isn't, per se, a bad thing -- as long as it's done cleanly and well documented. MS OXML fails on those last two points which is part of what IMO makes this proposed standard a bit stinky.

Re:hmm

[mollymoo]

Isn't that just for use when converting documents from Word 5.0.3 format?

No, it's for use when not bothering to convert documents from Word 5.0.3 properly. If you were really converting a document, you'd implement the behaviour of Word 5.0.3 using the new tags. If Word 5.0.3 in double-line-spacing mode did 1.97x line spacing and added a 0.05 inch extra margin at the bottom of the page, you should code that, not just have flag which says "be like Word 5.0.3". The place for details of legacy file formats like that is in a conversion tool, not the specification.

Re:hmm

[miguel]

The problem with Microsoft's "standard" is that in many places it says things like "do what Word 5.0.3 does in when in double-line-spaced mode" without saying just what that means. The specification for Microsoft's XML format is not in the standards documents, it exists in only one place - the source code for Microsoft Word. Making a fully compliant implementation of Microsoft's XML format when you haven't got access to the Word codebase is therefore virtually impossible.

I found the answer from the reply from ECMA to ISO (here: http://www.computerworld.com/pdfs/Ecma.pdf) very enlightening.

As it turns out OpenOffice has a similar feature the "config:config-item" XML property, and there are a number of these config properties that remain unspecified (from page 14):

The ODF committee chose to exclude the list of settings (many of which are commonly used in a variety of applications) from the ODF standard, which has resulted in a large number of separately defined application specific settings which is an actual barrier to interoperability. For example, the following are a small selection of properties that OpenOffice saves into ODF using application specific settings (all of which affect the display of the document):

• 
  
• ChartAutoUpdate - specifies if charts in text documents are updated automatically.
  
• AddParaTableSpacing - specifies if spacing between paragraphs and tables is to be added.
  
• AddParaTableSpacingAtStart - specifies if top paragraph spacing is applied to paragraphs 1 on the first
  page of text documents.
  
• AlignTabStopPosition - specifies the alignment of tab stops in text documents.
  
• SaveGlobalDocumentLinks - specifies if the contents of links in the global document are saved or not.
  
• IsLabelDocument - specifies if the document has been created as a label document.
  
• UseFormerLineSpacing - specifies if the former (till OpenOffice.org 1.1) or the new line spacing
  formatting is applied.
  
• AddParaSpacingToTableCells - specifies if paragraph and table spacing is added at the bottom of table cells
  
• UseFormerObjectPositioning - specifies if the former (till OpenOffice.org 1.1) or the new object positioning is applied.
  
• ConsiderTextWrapOnObjPos - specifies if the text wrap of floating screen objects are considered in a specified way in the positioning algorithm.
  

It seems that more effort has gone into finding faults into OOXML while the same faults exist in ODF.

Miguel.

Re:hmm

[miguel]

Hello,

I do know about OpenFormula, but OpenFormula is not part of ODF, it is a work in progress that will eventually end up in ODF and with luck, will end up in the ISO standard.

Which was precisely my point: you can build a spreadsheet, as long as you are willing to read third-party information (source code, Excel documentation, Excel books, or OpenFormula) or you resort to the OOXML ECMA standard (ECMA, not ISO yet).

Miguel.

Re:hmm

[codemachine]

The backwards compatibility is necessary for them to fit this new XML format into the MS Word application. Word has legacy code that they don't even know how to document, so they just tag the documents to follow that specific code path when necessary.

The file format wasn't designed from scratch to be an XML document format, it was designed to be a format that MS Word could read, write, and render. That is what you get when you design the document format around the application instead of writing code with the aim of reading and writing a standard document format.

I'm sure brand new documents in OOXML format are unlikely to even have these undocumented tags, it is the ones converted to OOXML from older DOC files that will be a problem for programs like OpenOffice. So that'll leave MS as having the only office suite that can cleanly migrate your legacy documents to the new format. From an application standpoint (and vendor lockin standpoint), it actually makes a lot of sense for them to do it that way. A new XML version of .doc that allows easy transition from older formats is something that MS would probably be doing anyhow. It is the standardization of it by ISO that makes no sense at all, and is only a byproduct of politics and marketing. From a technical point of view, that is no way to create a standard document format. Therefore it isn't surprising that OOXML is a poor candidate for ISO standardization, as it probably wasn't designed for that purpose in the first place, but instead was mashed into that role for other reasons.

Re:hmm

[rastos1]

The comments in the link you provided do not seem valid to me. The explanation says that the features in OpenXML are voluntary - not using them or implementing them in different way does not break ISO complience.

This is common practice because applications can innovate to create more optimum justification algorithms, and it would not be appropriate for the standard to limit such innovation. Instead, the goal of paragraph justification is described, and the algorithms are then left to the implementer to create.

On the other hand ODF explicitelly requires implenting features not described in the standard:

The above settings all affect how the document is rendered, and not a single one of them is defined in the ODF specification. They are unique to OpenOffice, and someone would need to go look at the OpenOffice documentation if they wanted to display the document in exactly the same way.

First, it would be interesting to know how KOffice or AbiWord deal with such features. Second, the source code for OOo is open. So it is actually possible to look up how UseFormerObjectPositioning was implemented in OOo 1.1. Third, the complaint about OOo vs. MSOffice interoperability usually is that the documents do not "look the same" in both. The ODF attempts to avoid this and states "in order to be compliant, all implementation must produce the same output". What good is an ISO standard if the documents are compliant but do not look the same? Is that interoperability?

Re:hmm

[igb]

Have you seen any ISO 9001 certificates? The idea of going ISO is to be able to certify and advertise you compliance. There is no 97% compliance certificate!

The management systems, starting with 9000 and spanning things like 14001 environment, 18001 safety/health and 27001 security, have audit as an integral part of the process. That's not true of the other ISO standards: there isn't a process for having your `ISO' C Compiler certified, and there isn't an audit process. There are test suites, but no certifications.

Re:hmm

[jawtheshark]

True. But I said "if Microsoft had done it right", which implied that they would have to reverse engineer their own convulted code. That's the whole irony: Microsoft set itself in the position everyone else was... documenting the undocumentable. What they did is work around it, by saying "do as that particular program does" without saying what it does because they don't know it themselves.

Re:hmm

[Eivind]

Sure. I absolutely agree that it is infact completely braindead for a supposedly modern file-format to include tags such as "Render however Word 5.3 on a Mac used to do it" at all. I wasn't defending it, merely stating that it *is* so, and that imho the stupid tags don't make it much harder to *write* a correct Ms-Office-xml document. (because you can simply ignore the braindead tags)

Re:hmm

[Eivind]

True, but I suspect that even MS doesn't really know *exactly* what effects such options have, and many of them interlock. 1900 is a leap-year if you ask certain versions of certain MS-programs, and they codified this too. So, to be compliant, a modern word-processor has to be able to *pretend* that 1900 is a leap-year, and do date-calculations and similar correctly both with and without this (erroneous) assumption.

It's a non-trivial job to enumerate all possible consequences of 1900 being a leap-year, for example. One that MS has *zero* incentive to undertake. Why would they spend effort helping out their competitors.

That ISO appears poised to accept such bullshit as a "standard" is another matter entirely and a complete disgrace.

Re:hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Miguel, when are you going to get off Microsofts dick? From Wikipedia:

Microsoft continued to protest that OpenDocument could not be used because it did not define a format for spreadsheet formulas, yet its own specification continued to omit any specification about formulas through April 2006. Finally, in May 2006, Microsoft also began defining formulas in its XML format, 15 months after the first version of OpenFormula and 3 months after OASIS posted its first official draft of its specification.

Standardized formulae only become relevant when moving spreadsheet data between different applications. I use SC, I'm certain it uses a vastly different formula engine than Gnumeric or MS exel.

Next you'll be telling us there are no valid patent concerns over OOXML.

Re:hmm

[rtb61]

Which is really terrible as you don't have the source code for Open Office, the driver behind ODF, oh wait, you do, so what is your point.

Re:hmm

[donaldm]

> Oh that's right I forgot, ther is no real OSS community anymore

Thats funny I could have sworn I have Fedora Core 6 on my laptop. I better check:
$ uname -a
Linux helios.org.au 2.6.19-1.2911.fc6 #1 SMP Sat Feb 10 15:16:31 EST 2007 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux

> Yet, ODF is just as patented and closed as OOXML

Really were did you get that from?

If you want some facts it takes 6000 pages to define the so called OOXML standard, compared to 600 pages of the ODF standard (a 10 to 1 ratio). Read into that what you may.

Re:hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh that's right I forgot, ther is no real OSS community anymore

He said there's no real community, not there's no real Linux.

If you want some facts it takes 6000 pages to define the so called OOXML standard, compared to 600 pages of the ODF standard (a 10 to 1 ratio). Read into that what you may.

That's an awesome fact. It's so... factual. I can actually feel fact oozing from it like guts from a freshly-squeezed snail. It's just a pity you weaseled out of trying to use that fact as a basis for discussion. The length of the documentation can say everything or nothing about how patented and closed each spec is. Hell, if you want to be picky, here's my 1-line spec for an open document format:-

Render everything in the document as Open Office 2.0 would.

Can you find something... relevant?

Re:hmm

[burner]

Yes, I think that was the gist of my post.

Re:hmm

[ivan256]

Who cares about writing though? Isn't the point of all this that you should be able to read the documents without having to pay Microsoft?

They've already got a lock on the market. The only reason they're bothering with this stuff is because some governments and companies have laws/rules stating documents need to be stored in an ISO standard format. Those rules and laws exist to guarantee the ability to read those documents. The only piece of software that should care at all about being able to write OpenXML files is Microsoft Office. If you're not using Office, why would you care that you are capable of writing a file that can be read by it?

Re:hmm

[turbidostato]

"If you're not using Office, why would you care that you are capable of writing a file that can be read by it?"

Because, oh! brave new world, you might need to *modify* it.

Re:hmm

[ivan256]

I don't see how modifying it bestows some requirement to save the modified document in the original format...

Re:hmm

[turbidostato]

Because _it's_not_your_document_. The owner might want to furtherly work on it... on the format he manages because he uses -gasp, Microsoft Word (someone had to, since the document ended up being Ms Doc format).

There are lots of bad standards.

[Kenja]

There are all sorts of ISO standards that people refuse to use in their current form. Not seeing this one as that big of a deal however. I'd rather have a published standard for microsoft interoperation via XML file formats then the old .doc & .xsl files.


Oh yes, "Groklaw SMASH!"

Re:There are lots of bad standards.

[QuantumG]

Like, say, the C99 standard.. it's 2007 and we still don't have a conforming implementation. The committee failed to perform its mandate, codifying existing practice, and we, the developers who use this language, have suffered as a result.

Re:There are lots of bad standards.

[Kenja]

For the less nerdy (go find your own message board), C99 is the most recent ISO standard for the C programming language. The numbers refer to the year it was introduced. C99 is an update of C89 and C78. Logic would tell us that we should be at C07 or there about. But such is the way of standards.

Re:There are lots of bad standards.

[Eric Damron]

"There are all sorts of ISO standards that people refuse to use in their current form."

But how many of them are used by a product that has a monopoly share of the market? People will buy Microsoft Office 2007. People will save almost all documents using the default OXML format. People will feel the pain of Microsoft's lock-in once more.

Re:There are lots of bad standards.

[Anonymous Coward]

I would love to see them codify existing practice:

C99 standard section 10.1.2:
if the compiler name is "Microsoft Visual C++" then
    .
    .
else if the compiler name is "GCC" then
    .
    .
end if

(It's true but funny)

Re:There are lots of bad standards.

[TimHunter]

C78? No such thing. The first ANSI C standard was C89.

Re:There are lots of bad standards.

[Anonymous Coward]

OOXML is not nescesarily a bad standard.
Just not a perfect standard.
I wrote already in my blog about this:
http://ooxmlhoaxes.blogspot.com/2007/03/ooxml-hoax -6-iso-fasttracking-requires.html

I think that Groklaw is trying to discredit OOXML in a very anoying way by hiding the realities of both formats. Groklaw seems to sit on the IBM bandwagon in a big way. (though I might be biased because any positive comment on OOXML I put on Groklaw has been moderated away)

It would have been better if slashdot had linked to the original article in stead of the Groklaw interpretation of it.
Original article here: http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?com mand=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9012860&intsrc=new s_ts_head

--
The Wraith
http://ooxmlhoaxes.blogspot.com/

Re:There are lots of bad standards.

[Dan_Bercell]

Is this new format is worse then the .doc format how???

Re:There are lots of bad standards.

[QuantumG]

heh, true.

Shit like zero length arrays vs variable length arrays was more what I was thinking.

There was essentially only two parts good to C99: // and mid block variable declarations.

But then again, it has been 5 years since I bothered to read it.

Re:There are lots of bad standards.

[Anonymous Coward]

> OOXML is not nescesarily a bad standard.

Sure, it's just the opposite of a good standard. Please refer to it as CPXML (closed proprietary XML) from now on to disambiguate it from OpenOffice.org

TIA

Re:There are lots of bad standards.

[Grant_Watson]

C78? No such thing. The first ANSI C standard was C89.

That's the year K&R was first published, so I assume the GP means K&R C.

No teeth.

[Original Replica]

"despite the detailed complaints from national standards bodies."

So what is the point of these national standards bodies? Standards without a method of enforcement, are called "suggestions".

Re:No teeth.

[gkhan1]

Since you can't enforce these standards legally, you have to have these sorts of organisations that at least try to get some sort of consensus. After they've agreed on a standard, that can then become part of the conversation between different companies. "Can you implement standard X" instead of "What exactly do you do?"

Even if these standards have no "teeth", it is still hugely useful that they exist. Not all become what is used, but many do. Remember, HTTP and TCP/IP are such standards. They have caught on, have they not?

Re:No teeth.

[Anonymous Coward]

Any standards body part funded by Microsoft has a clear conflict of interest and approves Microsoft specs despite the fact they are technical garbage.

The ISO are joining the IETF (via the ISOC), W3c and EMCA as Microsoft shills.

A standards body that can't be bought and will remain immune to pressure may not be possible. I'd settle for one that doesn't sell out to Microsoft the first chance it gets.

Re:No teeth.

[Reality Master 101]

"despite the detailed complaints from national standards bodies." [...] So what is the point of these national standards bodies? Standards without a method of enforcement, are called "suggestions".

It depends on what the complaints actually were and how legitimate they are. I'm certain a lot of them were variations on "Micro$oft is teh SUX0R". There might have been some reasonable ones as well, but just because someone complains, doesn't mean the complaints are valid.

Re:No teeth.

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember, HTTP and TCP/IP are such standards. They have caught on, have they not?

both of which were developed by being used rather than coming from some company or being handed down from some politicalized standards committee.

Re:No teeth.

[Anonymous Coward]

The reviews of the national bodies were to identify possible problems with contradictions with ISO standards. Ecma responded to those review and then if need the ISO JCT1 SC34 committe can advise on the raised issues.

Result of that can be continuation of the fastreracking proces, delay of the fastracking proces (for instance when an amendment by the proposing body is recommended) or withdrawel of the standard by the proposing body for instance when the JCTS committee strongly advinses against it. However the continuing of the fasttracking proces is mostly a procederal matter at this stage. There is no vote yet. so unless Ecma were to delay or stop the fastracking proces themselves the procedure would stay on course.

--
The Wraith
http://ooxmlhoaxes.blogspot.com/

Re:No teeth.

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Even if these standards have no "teeth", it is still hugely useful that they exist.

Only if they are minimal, complete and unambiguous. In other words, only if everyone implementing the standard will follow the same conventions in practice. Since Microsoft's XML "standard" is neither complete nor unambiguous, it's worth about as much to anyone else as a patent dressed up in obscuring legalese, and any standards body worth its salt should reject it.

Re:No teeth.

[MeNeXT]

Thank you for clarifying that but what was your point and what did you mean? Your guess is that someone guessed? I was under the impression that complaints were filed and open to review as per the article. Your point is that you guess that someone was probably somewhat, or somehow pretending to have complaints?

As per the article the complaints were "detailed" and were filed by "national standards bodies". "I'm certain" that you assumed.

Re:No teeth.

[marcosdumay]

Oh no... They have teeth, they just didn't have the chance of using it yet.

ECMA submitted the standard for ISO. ISO can't really edit it alone, since it would ceasse to be an ECMA standard, and as it is already a standard, it goes to fast tracking. Then, the draft goes to the members, so they can comment on it, and everybody can create a better standard toghether.

We are here now. ECMA simply refused to improve its standard to meet ISO expectations. ISO could take tha long route, and disscuss the subject for years, or it could take the short way, and decide now if they like or not the draft.

It choosed the short route, and 5 mounths from now the members will be able to show (or not) their teeth.

Re:No teeth.

[Reality Master 101]

Thank you for clarifying that but what was your point and what did you mean?

My point is that people seem to think that just because they get complaints, then somehow the standard organization shouldn't move forward (or shouldn't fast track the standard). I would be surprised if anything with Microsoft's name didn't get complaints.

Re:No teeth.

[VirusEqualsVeryYes]

Standards without a method of enforcement are called "suggestions".

...or "recommendations."

Re:No teeth.

[richlv]

if http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections is a variation of "Micro$oft is teh SUX0R", it's a pretty lenghty and detailed variation of that one...

Re:No teeth.

[dvdeug]

How about the standard includes *2* different language tagging systems based off the obsolete ISO 639-1 standard, with a frequently harmful mandatory country tag? This means that you can't properly tag Low German, or Scots, or Cherokee, or any one of hundreds of other languages that are supported by ISO 639-2, which will be ten years old next year.

So corruption is apparently widespread

[Anonymous Coward]

How many rules and regulations have been broken by putting a broken standard on the fast track?

The great thing about standards...

[26199]

...is there are so many to choose from. Yes?

Re:The great thing about standards...

[dvice_null]

Standards are so good that everyone should have one.

Re:The great thing about standards...

[Locklin]

Seems interesting that the ISO is in a hurry to sanction a standard that is specifically designed to make compliance as difficult as possible.

no big deal

[eerok]

This is likely just a fast track off a short pier.

All the more reason to not push new ones.

[twitter]

There are all sorts of ISO standards that people refuse to use in their current form.

The article linked to that M$ party line statement, and it's pathetic on two levels. The first is that it's a sorry excuse to push a new bad standard. The second is that it's admission that Microsoft Office XML is a bad standard.

The parade of backlash to their bullying is heartening. The tactics are, as usual, backfiring on them. "Microsoft, just say no." sounds like a nice slogan.

Oh yes, "Groklaw SMASH!"

Indeed, but shit is always easy to smash.

Re:All the more reason to not push new ones.

[Kenja]

There are a lot of us, myself included, that are irreversably intermeshed with the microsoft file formats. I'd rather have a published standard then not.

Re:All the more reason to not push new ones.

[Anonymous Coward]

The parade of backlash to their bullying is heartening / Oh yes, "Groklaw SMASH!" / Indeed, but shit is always easy to smash.

Do you express yourself that way in everyday interaction with other people? I'm actually curious.

Re:All the more reason to not push new ones.

[jZnat]

And I'd rather have Microsoft use the already ISO-standardised and widely used ODF standard.

Re:All the more reason to not push new ones.

[Anonymous Coward]

> irreversably intermeshed with the microsoft file formats.

That's rubbish, Microsoft can easily add ODF support.

> I'd rather have a published standard then not.

ODF!

MS Office software would get cheaper if they were forced to compete in an open market. Remember that Office and Windows are Microsoft's only profitable divisions, with every Office license you're subsidizing expansion of the most profitable monopoly in history. ODF is a win for everyone except Microsoft.

Re:All the more reason to not push new ones.

[imroy]

Why does it matter if OOXML is an ISO standard or not? Microsoft is already using it in Office 2007 and people are creating OOXML files. MS just wants it to be a standard to lend the format an air of officialdom and to dazzle clueless managers.

Re:All the more reason to not push new ones.

[Kalriath]

Correction, Microsoft ALREADY added ODF support. Go download the addon off Sourceforge (http://odf-converter.sourceforge.net/). Microsoft provides technical and architectural guidance, and pays for that project. I'm all for bashing MS where it's due, but try not to bash them on topics where you're wrong.

Re:All the more reason to not push new ones.

[erroneus]

It also serves to keep themselves under consideration as various government bodies move to use only openly documented standard data formats to ensure that the data is accessible in the future. Without the perception that they can deliver on that need, they will no longer be players with regard to government data which, as we know, has a bleeding effect against other entities such as businesses that do business with the governmental entities.

Re:All the more reason to not push new ones.

[MeNeXT]

The point is that there is no standard. It is not clearly defined. Microsoft wishes to certify an incomplete standard...They are not publishing it. They just want certification on incomplete documents.

So it's time to stop being irreversably intermeshed with the microsoft file formats or start complaining to Microsoft to change their ways by fully disclosing the formats specs.

I just don't see what people don't get. The problem here is Microsoft and Microsoft has no interest in fixing it.

Re:All the more reason to not push new ones.

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

Is it built in to the latest version of office? If not it's all fluff. I can't publish an odf document to an internal mailing list and tell 80 co-workers to "just download this plugin to open it", that's silly. Granted people seem more than willing to download plugins, codecs, archivers, etc just to get to some content that shouldn't be using it.. but that really shouldn't be encouraged, it's horrible for security and an annoyance on users.

Re:All the more reason to not push new ones.

[Clazzy]

Why not include it by default then? There really isn't anything stopping them, they simply do it to appease the technologically-minded users who will actually look for an ODF plugin before complaining. At least providing native ODF support from the off would be a step in the right direction, even if it wasn't the default filetype to save as.

Re:All the more reason to not push new ones.

[Kuciwalker]

They do. There's a plugin for reading and writing ODF in Word 2007.

Re:All the more reason to not push new ones.

[Wraith, The]

It has taken OpenOffice almost two years since standardization and still they cannot fully support ODF yet and they actually started with a big headstart. You comment suggest that one can just built in ODF support on any an accepetable level for MS Office not realistic. MS Office has even more features and also would have to adapt and or extend on ODF to put al those features in ODF (or they would be accussed of adding a handicapped implementation of ODF). Adding a complex fileformat and fully supporting it is also a very complex and lengty process. By using the plugin support the ODF support can be continuously developed and if in the future the need is there to add ODF support directly in MS office they can reuse that code as I think they released in on an OSS license that does not require implementations to share it's code.

Re:All the more reason to not push new ones.

[Bert64]

This plugin is incomplete, and fails on all but the simplest of files...
It also doesn't insert itself into the open/save dialog, it adds new import/export as odf options to the menu, which are entirely counterintuitive...
It is not possible to autosave as odf, and saving manually requires going through a seperate process, as does loading. The plugin is designed to discourage the use of ODF and make it as difficult as possible.

Re:All the more reason to not push new ones.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not as a first-class citizen, in fact designed to be "just exactly too cumbersome to reach for". If it had been an honest attempt, it would have been side-by-side with the MS XML and you could choose either as your default. Lip service is too nice to describe it.

Re:All the more reason to not push new ones.

[The_Quinn]

It has taken OpenOffice almost two years since standardization and still they cannot fully support ODF yet Not only that, but the simple fact that a standard exists does not automatically mean that it is the best thing, the only thing, and that everyone should use it now and forever. There is room for debate, disagreement, and non-conformity in the standards arena - and I find it somewhat disturbing when there is a tremendous amount of peer/community pressure for you to comply with the current groupthink.

Re:All the more reason to not push new ones.

[TemporalBeing]

They do. There's a plugin for reading and writing ODF in Word 2007.

Sorry, but they don't. Microsoft barely even approves of that plug-in, and give recognition to it only to get past the 'Office does not support ODF' argument. The plugin does not even provide the same level of support for ODF that Word Perfect 5.x gets (or use to get). Support means putting it in the "Save As" dialog, not putting up a separate menu entry for "Save As ODF..." - and we all know that Microsoft can do that even with plug-ins as that is how you still get a lot of support for the older documents that are not Microsoft's.

Fifteen years late

[HomelessInLaJolla]

The industry is fifteen years down the wrong path. We (many of us) tried to warn our nontechnical peers before things came to this point. We tried to express the benefits of a diverse field. We tried to illustrate the merits of alternative technologies. We tried to sing the praises of other operating systems and other companies. The sad fact is that computer technology was wrestled away from the true technologists who invented it and was thrust headlong to the public sector by the businessmen, politicians, stock brokers, and bankers who saw a massive profit potential in it but had no real knowledge or appreciation of the intellectual advancements which created it.

Billions of dollars in taxpayer money were funnelled, through government grants, contracts, and subsidies, into social circles and corporations who had demonstrated a willingness to put aside the morals and values of the true scientists in favor of ensuring their own priveleged paychecks, pensions, and long term profit margins. The American taxpayers subsidized the startup of the .com bubble, we paid for the infrastructure on which the rest of the internet was built, and we paid for the products, the software, and the services on the consumer end. Where, then, did the profits from the .com bubble go? The profits went into the hands of the same major investment groups who have been carefully profiling and controlling the market for generations--people who, when the .com bubble became the .com bust, shrewdly bought the real estate being sold by the common people seeking to ameliorate their losses (which had been carefully planned by those people who were now buying their real estate at dirt cheap prices). When America began to return to consciousness after the .com blackout we now find that the same real estate which we sold to keep ourselves from bankruptcy is being rented or sold back to us--as condos, apartments, are housing communities--at three, four, ten, even hundreds of times the cost.

The pyramid scheme is so beautiful we could almost cry for joy if we were on the financial winning side of it. As it is we have no choice but to cope with a world where Motorola is relegated to handhelds, HP has partnered with Compaq and become just another x86 retailer, and Microsoft holds a betting majority of the chips when it comes to influencing the direction of software development and globally recognized protocols.

Re:Fifteen years late

[Compholio]

As it is we have no choice but to cope with a world where Motorola is relegated to handhelds, HP has partnered with Compaq and become just another x86 retailer, and Microsoft holds a betting majority of the chips when it comes to influencing the direction of software development and globally recognized protocols.

That's not entirely true. There are people fighting back, you do have a choice. I know everyone hates it when you pull out the "Linux" card, but from my perspective it is a perfectly viable alternative for many people. Let's look at the checklist:

• Email: Check
• Web browsing: Check
• Word Processing: Check
• Simple games (Solitaire, Web Games): Check
• Simple GUI (for some): Check
• Complicated command-line (for others): Check
• Commercial Games: Depends

Yeah, that list is pretty short but what do most people do on their computers? Not much.

Re:Fifteen years late

[homer_s]

The American taxpayers subsidized the startup of the .com bubble, we paid for the infrastructure on which the rest of the internet was built, and we paid for the products, the software, and the services on the consumer end. Where, then, did the profits from the .com bubble go? The profits went into the hands of the same major investment groups who have been carefully profiling and controlling the market for generations--people who, when the .com bubble became the .com bust, shrewdly bought the real estate being sold by the common people seeking to ameliorate their losses (which had been carefully planned by those people who were now buying their real estate at dirt cheap prices). When America began to return to consciousness after the .com blackout we now find that the same real estate which we sold to keep ourselves from bankruptcy is being rented or sold back to us--as condos, apartments, are housing communities--at three, four, ten, even hundreds of times the cost.

The only surprise is that anyone is surprised by it. Read up on how and why the Fed was created (hint: it is not to 'fight inflation'). The federal reserve (basically a group of well connected bankers) decide what your money is worth. If their pals in the govt are in a bind, they will just create new money thereby lowering the value of the money in your pocket. This cause the inflation that the fed is supposed to 'fight'. It really is a cute semantic trick - the result of inflation, rise in prices, has been turned into the cause of inflation.

This funny money was the cause of the .com bubble. This is the cause of the real estate 'boom'. They will dig some other hole to soften the real estate bust - guess who is going to make money on that?

Re:Fifteen years late

[Laserwulf]

I kept waiting for the punchline involving the Bavarian Illuminati, but it never came.

Fast tracking it could be a good thing

[KiltedKnight]

Assuming that the groups that had all the problems with it are not swayed by something between now and then, the end result looks a bit more like it would be a rejection than an approval... and if it's an approval, it will be a squeaker, not a landslide victory.

That said, it should be noted that the MSOXML does not fully expand out the data. When you read the article, you find that there are still things that are binary-encoded and proprietary.

As for standards, especially ISO ones, using the words of one of my graduate class professors when he was referring to stuff from OSI: "They're camels. A camel is a horse designed by committee."

Re:Fast tracking it could be a good thing

[SanityInAnarchy]

They're camels. A camel is a horse designed by committee.

If we're talking about something you'd want to ride in the desert, a horse is a camel designed by a PR department. Or by Steve Jobs.

Re:Fast tracking it could be a good thing

[hilton_a]

If you want to implement OpenXml, you do not need to support the legacy bits as far as I understand. The only reason MS included it was to provide backwards compatibility with legacy versions of Office, something ODF could never deliver. There is *nothing* in the standard than claims you must support a binary-encoded proprietory standard. That would be a nonsense. There seems to be a raft of articles out there on OpenXml with false claims and they are repeatedly quoted here as fact. Since when did slashdotters start believing everything they read?

Re:Fast tracking it could be a good thing

[KiltedKnight]

You may not need to support the legacy bits, but there's an inherent problem that goes against the entire concept of an Open Document Format... with their presence comes the temptation to use them to give their product a hidden benefit.

I'd put my money on Microsoft using any little hidden trick like that in order to gain an advantage while still claiming to be providing an "open" interface.

Re:Fast tracking it could be a good thing

[hilton_a]

Unfortunately this is the usual unfounded crap that is constantly peddled against Microsoft. They simply don't do it. If you are basing your theory on the differences between IE and Netscape implementations, both parties implemented beyond the existing 'standard' at the time. The only reason MS cannot completely adhere to web standards in the current version of IE is backwards compatibility.

Other MS standards that have been opened (such as the ISO ratified Common Language Infrastructure) has not been subject to the 'tampering' you speak of.

Re:Fast tracking it could be a good thing

[KiltedKnight]

The only reason MS cannot completely adhere to web standards in the current version of IE is backwards compatibility.

Shenanigans! Their web browsers render broken HTML and have been doing this for a long time... because their products produce broken HTML. Things like missing </table> tags...

That aside, my statements are based on the anti-competetive business practices they have practiced in the past... like having the IE installation program remove any copy of Netscape from your computer without telling you about it or requesting your consent to do so. Or their practices of having the operating system send back crash report data without your knowledge or consent.

Whether or not they do it with some of the standards that have been opened up does not matter. As long as there is binary-encoded data present, there will be a temptation to use it beyond whatever they say it will be used for.

Re:Fast tracking it could be a good thing

[hilton_a]

Shenanigans! Their web browsers render broken HTML and have been doing this for a long time... because their products produce broken HTML. Things like missing tags...

As I previously said, *backwards compatibility*. They made a choice of not strictly parsing back in the early days of IE and are now paying the price for it. This was before XML mind you so it was hardly a contentious decision back then.

like having the IE installation program remove any copy of Netscape from your computer without telling you about it or requesting your consent to do so. I have never heard of this. If true, it is indeed anti-competitive. The MS of today would never do it; times have changed. But I'm intrigued - do you have a reference?

Or their practices of having the operating system send back crash report data without your knowledge or consent. They don't do this now - so what's the problem? Not that it ever really was a problem.

As long as there is binary-encoded data present, there will be a temptation to use it beyond whatever they say it will be used for. Please read-up on the "binary encoded" content. It's an XML-Schema based specification. As I understand it binary files included in a ZIP package can be anything - it's simply a reference to the binary file that your hosting app decides what to do with. They haven't specified how to decode a JPEG for example.

Re:Fast tracking it could be a good thing

[KiltedKnight]

it was hardly a contentious decision back then

Wrong again. The HTML standard, even with HTML 3.0, stated that the <table> tag REQUIRED a </table> tag. Based on the language standards, they should've been enforcing this but made a decision not to.

I have never heard of this. If true, it is indeed anti-competitive. The MS of today would never do it; times have changed. But I'm intrigued - do you have a reference?

You're asking me to go back almost a decade to find something like that. I know that a friend of mine actually experienced this.

They don't do this now - so what's the problem? Not that it ever really was a problem.

You don't work for a government contractor or with secure data, do you. It's a HUGE problem if the program that crashes and sends back a report is dealing with secure data, be it government classified or corporate (like maybe your credit card number?).

Please read-up on the "binary encoded" content. It's an XML-Schema based specification. As I understand it binary files included in a ZIP package can be anything - it's simply a reference to the binary file that your hosting app decides what to do with. They haven't specified how to decode a JPEG for example.

Binary-encoding JPEG data is one thing. Binary-encoding format data is another. Since some fields are being binary-encoded in the name of "backwards compatability," who knows what proprietary formatting information they might still keep in there that they won't put anywhere else.

Re:Fast tracking it could be a good thing

[hilton_a]

Wrong again. The HTML standard, even with HTML 3.0, stated that the tag REQUIRED a tag. Based on the language standards, they should've been enforcing this but made a decision not to. HTML 3.2 recommendation was ratified in 1997. The Netscape vs IE war begain in 1994. Three years earlier. Every HTML design tool that MS currently has conforms to the standards, including Visual Studio.

You're asking me to go back almost a decade to find something like that. I know that a friend of mine actually experienced this. Yes I am. From my knowledge, IE never uninstalled Netscape.

You don't work for a government contractor or with secure data, do you. It's a HUGE problem if the program that crashes and sends back a report is dealing with secure data, be it government classified or corporate (like maybe your credit card number?). I can see how that may be a problem. I can also see how one would easily make that mistake - when all they were trying to do was fix bugs.

Binary-encoding JPEG data is one thing. Binary-encoding format data is another. Since some fields are being binary-encoded in the name of "backwards compatability," who knows what proprietary formatting information they might still keep in there that they won't put anywhere else. No 'field' in the spec contains binary encoded information. As I understand it it's a reference to a file. There is no difference btw a jpeg and anything else, it's just a blob. You can put extra field information inside a JPEG to do 'secret stuff' if you really want to. Your whole argument is based on fear and misinformation about MS. Get over it dude. Don't rely on Groklaw for your all your info, because they have exactly the same biases.

Rumours of Death

[HTH NE1]

What? You mean that there should be some drawn-out process to keep the most-commonly-used XML format from being standardized?

"For a member of the High Council there's no such thing as standard procedure."

"The book says --"

"Never mind what the book says, Section Leader. All you have to worry about's what I say, right?"

"Absolutely, sir."

"Absolutely, Section Leader. And what I say is that if a High Councilor wishes to swing stark naked through the trees and spit on the surveillance scanners, then swinging stark naked through the trees, spitting on the surveillance scanners becomes standard procedure, at least for him. Or his wife."

"Now there's a thought!"

"Huh! Not one to dwell on, given your present rank."

"One law for the rich, eh Major?"

"There's no law for the rich, Forres, and even less for the rich, personal friends of the President."

[Puts his feet up on the console]
"They are only civilians, though."

"Do you want to join them?"
[Nods at feet]

[Takes feet down]
"Sorry, sir."

"If you want to get on in this man's army, Forres, you've got to learn to distinguish between civilians who are and civilians who aren't."

"Sir."
[Thinks twice]
"Are and aren't what, sir?"

"When you know that, Section Leader, you'll be ready for promotion."

How it works

[edwardpickman]

Guess we all know what she got for Christmas.

Re:How it works

[MoogMan]

Guess we all know what she got for Christmas.

Microsoft Office 2007?

Re:How it works

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

A blood-covered chair nailed to her front door?

Re:How it works

[Steve--Balllmer]

An Acer Ferrari laptop with Vista preinstalled?

Re:How it works

[Anonymous Coward]

Thou$and$ of $well thing$, ten$ and hundred$ of thou$and$.

Can't buy me loooove love..

[mrbluze]

But money can buy Microsoft just about anything else! So who needs love?

You won't get what you want from MS Office XML

[twitter]

I'd rather have a published standard for microsoft interoperation via XML file formats then the old .doc & .xsl files.

This too seems to be the M$ party line - the magic of XML is better than their old secret formats. It's bogus, of course, because their new XML is as poorly defined as any of their formats. If M$ was interested in interoperability, they would use ODF and make a converter using their knowledge of their crusty old standards. It's an impossible task because their old "standards" were contradictory to begin with. At the end of the day, the old formats are doomed to well deserved neglect, and there's no reason M$ could not just publish everything about them and let their former users translate things for themselves.

There's so much double talk around this issue, it's not even funny.

Re:You won't get what you want from MS Office XML

[Zelos]

What do you mean "as poorly defined"? With the binary formats there was basically no documentation: now we have detailed vendor-supplied documentation of virtually the entire XML format. How is that not an improvement?

Re:You won't get what you want from MS Office XML

[TekPolitik]

their new XML is as poorly defined as any of their formats

It's actually much worse than the /. article you linked to would suggest. That article merely suggests there are undocumented bits, but the truth is that a substantial portion of the documentation is flat out wrong. If you follow the documentation, I guarantee you that your file will not be readable in any version of Microsoft Office.

Re:You won't get what you want from MS Office XML

[hilton_a]

Rubbish. Post your evidence. Hopefully it will be substantiated with your own investigation, rather than giving support to yet more questionable 'research' on the topic.

Re:You won't get what you want from MS Office XML

[Bert64]

It seems that their own knowledge of the format is severely lacking too...
Try opening or saving a word file with ms publisher, the support is far worse than any version of openoffice i've seen.

Re:You won't get what you want from MS Office XML

[TekPolitik]

Rubbish. Post your evidence. Hopefully it will be substantiated with your own investigation, rather than giving support to yet more questionable 'research' on the topic.

Since I've actually done it, I have all the evidence I need. To get it to work I literally had to deviate from the documented standard, and not just in small ways. There are attributes and namespaces that Office expects to be different to what is in the documented standard. Sometimes it's just an error in case (which is still an error since XML is case sensitive) or a missing (or additional) letter. Sometimes it's a completely different string. Sometimes (in the case of a namespace) there's a path component in a URI that is in the spec but if you don't take that component out Office can't read the document. Sometimes the description of a tag is just blatantly wrong.

Re:You won't get what you want from MS Office XML

[hilton_a]

That's great! Your knowledge would be extremely beneficial to others. What is the product you are working on? Do you have a list of the problems?

Presumably the errors in XML case or spelling can be compared against the existing electronic schema (http://www.ecma-international.org/news/TC45_curre nt_work/TC45-2006-50_final_draft.htm/). In which case the schema obviously wins out, so I would see this as a minor typo that is easily fixed. In the case that Office couldn't read a document because an additional path component - isn't Office implemented with a different version of the schema (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?f amilyid=15805380-f2c0-4b80-9ad1-2cb0c300aef9&displ aylang=en/)? In any case, flaws exist in software and documentation and always will.

I also assume you have sent your concerns to ECMA and Microsoft so that the specification can be improved if required. Is the issue that your concerns have been ignored?

Re:You won't get what you want from MS Office XML

[TekPolitik]

I also assume you have sent your concerns to ECMA and Microsoft so that the specification can be improved if required.

Why would I do that when we have a perfectly good, genuinely open standard? I'm not interested in spending any of my time helping Microsoft be evil by producing a competing "standard" that's designed to promote continued lock-in. Quite frankly if they're determined to do that they really have no business expecting others to help when they screw it up.

Isn't Office implemented with a different version of the schema (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?f amilyid=15805380-f2c0-4b80-9ad1-2cb0c300aef9&displ aylang=en/)

Ah, the irony. A purported "standard" that is itself wrapped in a Microsoft proprietary format (in this case, CHM).

Re:You won't get what you want from MS Office XML

[hilton_a]

So your objection is political rather than technical. I'm not sure why you would implement OpenXml if you are so against it, and can only imagine that with your current attitude it will be a very difficult task.

I for one do not want to be stuck with a potentially flawed document specification that insists on using a whole lot of other flawed baggage. Not to mention being hijacked by a bunch of competing interests and FOSS zealots more interested in politics than technical innovation.

Not that I am against ODF in any way, it may turn out to be superior (although I'm highly dubious). I'm just for choice rather than lock-in in such a complex set of technologies. If anyone is placed to produce a decent spec to describe spreadsheets and word processing etc is it Microsoft. If MS joined ODF I doubt a fair hearing would be possible given the negativity towards MS of the groups involved.

Regarding CHM - I see no irony. The schema *documentation* is availabe in CHM or HTML format.

Opera is no better...

[Anonymous Coward]

Opera just fast-tracked their "HTML5" proposal with W3C: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2007 Mar/0019.html

Re:Opera is no better...

[SirTalon42]

What makes you say opera was 'fast tracked' by that email (other than the author's email ended with @opera.com, and it was CCed to w3.org people/lists)?

Re:Opera is no better...

[kennygraham]

Opera just fast-tracked their "HTML5" proposal with W3C: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2007 Mar/0019.html

HTML5 doesn't say things like "render like Opera 7 does"

Published Standard != Transparent or Open

[mpapet]

It's kind of like .doc only with obfuscation and litigation clearly called out.

What you fail to realize is the published standard in this case is handcuffed to an arsenal of undocumented licensed components.

From http://www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/default.mspx

Q: Why doesn't the OSP apply to things that are merely referenced in the specification?

A: It is a common practice that technology licenses focus on the specifics of what is detailed in the specification(s) and exclude what are frequently called "enabling technologies."

Hmmm... So the specification alludes to closed and undocumented "enabling technologies" without specifying them OR licensing them. Same old Microsoft.

Re:Published Standard != Transparent or Open

[Anonymous Coward]

The intellectual property rights to the ODF standard also does not give rights to things it merely references. Office standards require a lot of flexability in what you can add to a document. In theory you can embed any arbitrary format into ODF and OOXML. The suggestion that IP rights can be granted on other formats just because you can embed them in OOXML or ODF is just ridiculous.

--
The Wraith
http://ooxmlhoaxes.blogspot.com/

Yes.

[twitter]

An AC, trying to annoy, asks:

Do you express yourself that way in everyday interaction with other people? I'm actually curious.

Only 2/3 of those statements is mine, but yes I do express myself this way in real life. Most people think it's fun to be around, thank you.

Re:Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

An AC, trying to annoy, asks

That as well. Really... Really? And I'm not questioning whether you're "fun" to be around.

Did it work?

[twitter]

Guess we all know what she got for Christmas.

A copy of Vista? Ha ha, that will motivate her.

Limited number of choices here

[cdrguru]

Well, I suppose a standard could be created based on the documentation from Microsoft. It is hardly an independently-implementable standard, however.

Alternatively, a workable standard that is truely interoperable could be accepted that is not anything Microsoft would implement.

I seriously doubt there is much middle ground between these two positions. Microsoft is after all in a position to just say no.

The real problem is that even with (X)HTML/CSS it is not currently possible to take two different implementations and produce the same printed output from the same source material. This is a far, far simplier standard than anything being discussed as a word processing format, and yet there is no common implementation. I am not even sure there is today an accepted "correct" implementation for printing HTML.

How are we going to have a multi-implementation standard for word processing that produces identical formatted documents? I would say it is clear we are not going to have this. This makes the "standards" process a joke.

If you somehow believe that the "presentation" can be separated from the "content" in important documents, you probably need to have more familiarity with government processes.

Re:Limited number of choices here

[MeNeXT]

(X)HTML/CSS were not intended for print. Word with doc "standard" has trouble printing the same document on different printers from the same computer. The closest are Postscript and PDF, but even then you sometimes have font problems, color issues and more minor trouble.

This ISO standardization is supposed to clear up this matter but only seems to bring in more confusion.

NeXT had Display Postcript which rendered close to true but had no interoperability with any other system.

This is not a simple problem that can be resolved with a simple solution. It needs to start with a fully disclosed standard.

Re:Limited number of choices here

[mollymoo]

The real problem is that even with (X)HTML/CSS it is not currently possible to take two different implementations and produce the same printed output from the same source material. This is a far, far simplier standard than anything being discussed as a word processing format, and yet there is no common implementation. I am not even sure there is today an accepted "correct" implementation for printing HTML.

HTML and CSS were never designed to display identically on different devices. In fact, they explicitly do exactly the opposite, by allowing clients to format the content the best way for their displays (or other output devices).

How are we going to have a multi-implementation standard for word processing that produces identical formatted documents? I would say it is clear we are not going to have this. This makes the "standards" process a joke.

PDF isn't a word processing file format, but it does demonstrate you can have open file formats which display correctly on different devices using different implementations.

Re:Limited number of choices here

[jesterzog]

The real problem is that even with (X)HTML/CSS it is not currently possible to take two different implementations and produce the same printed output from the same source material.

Given that (X)HTML/CSS was never designed with a goal of producing identical output between different implementations, this is no surprise. HTML/CSS was designed with the intention of producing output that's most useful for the person reading the content, while still communicating the important information.

Re:Limited number of choices here

[hilton_a]

As I understand it each PDF implementation is written by Adobe, no doubt from a single code base. Therefore it displays correctly on different devices.

Re:Limited number of choices here

[tim_mcc]

There are a number of open source PDF readers, Xpdf is probably the most well known.

Re:Limited number of choices here

[mollymoo]

What makes you think every PDF implementation is written by Adobe? I see no mention of that in the half dozen different PDF viewers I've seen (and there are more). PDF views consistently because that's what it's designed to do and it's reasonably well designed.

Re:Limited number of choices here

[hilton_a]

My apologies, my statement was incorrect.

The new references the old and is just as bad.

[twitter]

What do you mean "as poorly defined"? With the binary formats there was basically no documentation: now we have detailed vendor-supplied documentation of virtually the entire XML format.

As you will note if you follow the previously supplied link, MSOfficeXML references the results of their old binary cruft without further definitions, which is no better than nothing at all.

If they really cared, they would reveal what they already know and quit keeping those old secrets. They don't and all their efforts are just so much PR, aka a big lie. You were lied to before and you are being lied to again.

Re:The new references the old and is just as bad.

[Zelos]

Again, how is "their new XML is as poorly defined as any of their formats"? You have pointed out that there are a few, legacy, parts of the specification that aren't defined. What we have for XML is several thousand pages of detailed specifications, compared to close to nothing before. How is that not better?

Re:The new references the old and is just as bad.

[pallmall1]

What we have for XML is several thousand pages of detailed specifications, compared to close to nothing before. How is that not better?

No, what we have is an elaborate wrapping, painted gold, containing what is still a turd.

Re:The new references the old and is just as bad.

[miguel]

As you will note if you follow the previously supplied link, MSOfficeXML references the results of their old binary cruft without further definitions, which is no better than nothing at all.

This is quite an exaggeration as the only "binary blobs" are for image metafiles, so it is a tiny fraction of the standard.

I would not mind having them standardized as well (of course, the "6,000-pages-is-too-long-istas" will complain that this is making it harder to implement.

The reality is that today's office suites already have code to cope with those metafile images as they are already used extensively, the formats have been documented in a number of implementations and can be downloaded from Microsoft's site.

On the other hand, we could all collective freak out.

Miguel.

Re:The new references the old and is just as bad.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is quite an exaggeration as the only "binary blobs" are for image metafiles, so it is a tiny fraction of the standard.

The word was "references". As in "This tag instructs the word processor to do (something) like Word 2002. See Word 2002 source code for details". This "standard" is as poorly defined as the .DOC "standard".

Re:The new references the old and is just as bad.

[mgiuca]

What completely boggles me is how can standardisation committees approve this crap?

If an organisation is devoted wholly and entirely to looking at standards and saying "this standard is open, let's give it a stamp of approval; this standard isn't open, we won't approve it" - and they are the world leaders in doing so - how can anyone on the team possibly look at a document which says "it shall operate like Word 5" and take it seriously.

It would be laughable if it wasn't such a huge fuckup. I completely fail to understand how these committes approve it. I do suspect the answer begins with a '$'.

This is to get past the pending laws

[Matt Perry]

The only reason that Microsoft wants this to be a standard is to get past the proposed laws that specify that government documents use an open standard. That's why these proposed laws, like the one recently introduced in California, need to specify that the standard must have an open-source reference implementation.

Re:This is to get past the pending laws

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

That's why these proposed laws, like the one recently introduced in California, need to specify that the standard must have an open-source reference implementation.

So tell me, what does a reference implementation of a document format look like?

Re:This is to get past the pending laws

[Anonymous Coward]

The lawmaking does influence the standardization choices. However the creation of Microsofts own XML formats started long before the EU asked OASIS to put it's formats up for ISO standardization. So the MS Office format was already going away from it's traditional binary formats and becoming readable/interpretable before lawmakers were interested in open standards.

--
The Wraith
http://ooxmlhoaxes.blogspot.com/

Re:This is to get past the pending laws

[gQuigs]

"need to specify that the standard must have an open-source reference implementation"

and that's where Novell comes in, adding MS's stuff to OpenOffice.org.

Re:This is to get past the pending laws

[DragonWriter]

Or, better, should specify that software acquired for use by public agencies must both be open-source and use open standard formats by a date certain, except where no suitable alternative to fill a need exists and sponsoring a conforming new system would be prohibitive.

Re:This is to get past the pending laws

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

Much like the POSIX compatibility layer originally in WinNT. Effectively worthless as an implementation, it did allow them to get contracts that required POSIX compliance.

No it's not.

[twitter]

Fast tracking only shows how much push they have and gives them more time to try again if it gets shot down. Reviewers should be respected, given the time they ask for and listened to when they finally form opinions.

Re:No it's not.

[KiltedKnight]

What's to say they won't go and join the member organizations in countries that require unanimous votes, regardless?

If you've read the article, unless those nations have a greater-than-five-month waiting period, they'll go and join up in those countries, and end up causing a non-unanimous vote such that the member nation ends up with an "abstain" instead of "no." This is a tactic they've used in the past in order to get some of their stuff through.

Unfortunately, no matter what you do, MS will try anything and everything to ramrod their imitation open standards through. The only way to get it rejected and subject to the review process that many of these member nations are screaming for is for those nations to be sure to vote against MSOXML. They have to stick with their resolve and hopefully find a way to keep MS from joining their review committees.

This 'could' be a good thing!

[Dan_Bercell]

I know no slashdoter wanted this (too much anti-ms in the air), but think of the bright side.

MS has the market by the balls with the only real competition being the WordPerfect suite...Personally I do not like it, but it is fairly widely used in School in Canada. Anything that allows Word documents to be a bit easier to convert to other formats is a good thing.

Re:This 'could' be a good thing!

[jawtheshark]

with the only real competition being the WordPerfect suite...

You must be pretty new here. No, and that is not the only one: KOffice, StarOffice, Gnumerus, AbiWord and even Google Documents

"Cruft", cute

[dedazo]

Their "old binary cruft" preserves backwards compatibility. Are you against that for some reason? That's all I take away from that "analysis" of the format. Is there some sort of predisposition against protecting an investment in your world?

Re:"Cruft", cute

[Anonymous Coward]

The "binary cruft" in Microsoft's proprietary Office XML file format doesn't preserve backwards compatibility at all.

You're lying when you make that claim and they're lying when they call the file format "open".

Re:"Cruft", cute

[DragonWriter]

Their "old binary cruft" preserves backwards compatibility. Are you against that for some reason?

No, I think he is against the failure to document the expected behavior instead of merely mandating mimicing of legacy applications behavior without specification of what that behavior is.

One would facilitate implementation. One is a barrier to implementation. Microsoft, unsurprisingly, chose the latter, either through incompetence or desire to produce a standard that could not practically be implemented by third parties.

Re:"Cruft", cute

[Ken D]

I fail to see how a truly open interoperable standard can possibly be backward compatible with a proprietary, closed, secret implementation.

Re:"Cruft", cute

[dedazo]

I fail to see how it can't be. If that's the "price" you need to pay to get rid of the "secret" implementation, then you need to decide if it's worth it. Microsoft can't just throw away billions of existing documents out there to make a few people happy.

Besides... the whole idea of using XML for this is brain dead. ODF or OOXML or whatever, it's stupid and shortsighted. A binary format that was well documented would have been much better. Regardless of standardization or openess, ODF and OOXML seem like solutions for a problem that we didn't have, but because it's "XML-based" everyone think it's really cool. The trillions of CPU cycles wasted on parsing those masses of redundant markup to bring up a memo are just mind-boggling.

Re:"Cruft", cute

[Zelos]

There is an alternative and (AFAIK) equally open binary version of the XML formats in Office 2007 if performance is an issue.

Re:"Cruft", cute

[chromatic]

Microsoft can't just throw away billions of existing documents out there to make a few people happy.

I'm not aware of anyone who holds that position. However, I know plenty of people who think that, if Microsoft really wanted to make an interoperable standard, said standard should include no backwards compatibility messes.

The last time I used Word (perhaps the year 2002), I noticed that it could read and write from and to several different file formats. I assume that a company with as many programmers as Microsoft has--and with the source code to MS Word--could presumably add support for this new standard file format without removing support for old file formats.

Re:"Cruft", cute

[MeNeXT]

Everything a computer processes is binary. To assume one format is less efficient than another without making a fair comparison is just plain silly.

Re:"Cruft", cute

[Jussi K. Kojootti]

Their "old binary cruft" preserves backwards compatibility. Are you against that for some reason?

Nothing prevents Microsoft from adding backwards compatibility features to their applications. Common sense should have prevented them from adding those same features to a fucking fileformat standard.

Now it's your turn: Why on earth should a file format spec cover backwards compatibility? Can you name other sane file formats that do it?

Re:"Cruft", cute

[dedazo]

Common sense should have prevented them from adding those same features to a fucking fileformat standard.

Then you're back at square one, whining about the "hidden APIs" and how anti-competitive they are.

Why on earth should a file format spec cover backwards compatibility? Can you name other sane file formats that do it?

It seems you and all your friends are nitpicking compatibility because you don't care about it. That's all well and good. Out there in the real world though, it's pretty important.

Re:"Cruft", cute

[mrchaotica]

Their "old binary cruft" preserves backwards compatibility. Are you against that for some reason?

Yes, damnit! Yes, we are against "backwards compatibility," because it's just a euphemism for "keeping the same shitty status quo we have now!"

A "standard" is supposed to be just that: a standard. That means it's supposed to be completely specified, cleanly designed, implementable by all parties (not just the organization that wrote it), etc. MS XML is NONE of these things, and is therefore not a "standard!" ISO should recognize that, and reject MS's bullshit. Unfortunately, it appears to be doing the opposite, most likely because of corruption and graft. It's a damn shame, and it's made even worse by people like you that can't even see it happening right in front of your face!

Re:"Cruft", cute

[Bert64]

They do this in the wrong way... The format doesn't need to cater for old bugs, that's utterly ridiculous.

Instead of the tags like "handlesmallcapslikemsword95formac" or whatever they have, they should handle this in the conversion stage, and convert the buggy behaviour to a standard way of representing the same thing (in the above example, small caps are 2pt smaller than they should be, so reduce the font size by 2pt)...
And if converting back the other way, this can also be taken into account.

With their way, only files originally created with these old buggy apps will actually ever convert back, it wont be possible to convert a newer file back to an older format properly.

Re:"Cruft", cute

[richlv]

even with giving you a benefit of doubt i'd like to call the argument about backwards compatibility a bullshit.

some interesting linked information is here :
http://www.sutor.com/newsite/blog-open/?p=1346

please, read through http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections . pay special attention to sections with "Compatibility Note".
i hope after those documents you'll see what incredible low quality and intentional drawbacks the "format" has.

Re:"Cruft", cute

[richlv]

see http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections

especially check sections with "Compatibility Note".
a couple of things from that document :

Several sections require the implementor to clone the behaviour of a proprietary product, where the behaviour to clone is not specified. For example:
Section 2.15.3.6 page 2161, autoSpaceLikeWord95. ...

Compatibility Note
Attributes like these have no place in an international standard, and are not needed for compatibility with existing documents. The correct way to achieve compatibility is through generic tags. For example:
autoSpaceLikeWord95 should be replaced by a generic character-spacing attribute that takes a numeric value or set of numeric values.

note that most of the things listed in compatibility notes are done by opendocument, so it is not only capable of dealing with backwards compatibility issues, but it is much better prepared to do that and makes application developers' life so much easier.

Re:"Cruft", cute

[Ken D]

Exactly.

You want compatibility, save it in the "compatible" file format, whatever that is.
You want interoperability, save it in the standard, interoperable file format.

When the IEEE802.5 network standard came out, there was an IBM proprietary version that already existed. You could buy hardware that could do both, but any one data packet was either in 802.5 format, or IBM format.

Don't take your eye off the ball!

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't want to convert word documents, we want to receive as ODF.

M$ will tell you soon.

[twitter]

You have pointed out that there are a few, legacy, parts of the specification that aren't defined. What we have for XML is several thousand pages of detailed specifications, compared to close to nothing before. How is that not better?

Soon enough M$ reps will be FUDing it up with the same old noise they've always made about "partial" implementations. All day long, you can hear them say that Open Office is not up to snuff because it does not "properly" translate all of those crusty old formats. Their new XML will be much the same, so it's no better.

If they get an ISO stamp, it will be worse because they can claim some kind of reputability and "openness" that they don't deserve.

Re:M$ will tell you soon.

[heinousjay]

So are you asking for Microsoft to stop selling their own office product and promote something that brings them no money? Or did I overshoot the wish, and you just want them to voluntarily stop selling their own product with no replacement? Or maybe you just think they should promote OpenOffice and leave their own product to languish?

I'm not sure where you're going, aside from the general "Microsoft is evil" crap.

so...

[Tom]

how much did Lisa get paid for her efforts? Was it cash or "perks"?

Yeah, mod me flamebait. I'd prefer having that checked anyways, even if just to be sure there was no foul play. With MS, the safe assumption is that someone involved didn't play by the rules.

Lameness filter encountered

[Anonymous Coward]

Post translated!

Thi$ too $eem$ to be the Micro$oft party line - the magic of XML i$ better than their old $ecret format$. It'$ bogu$, of cour$e, becau$e their new XML i$ a$ poorly defined a$ any of their format$. If Micro$oft wa$ intere$ted in interoperability, they would u$e ODF and make a converter u$ing their knowledge of their cru$ty old $tandard$. It'$ an impo$$ible ta$k becau$e their old "$tandard$" were contradictory to begin with. At the end of the day, the old format$ are doomed to well de$erved neglect, and there'$ no rea$on Micro$oft could not ju$t publi$h everything about them and let their former u$er$ tran$late thing$ for them$elve$.

There'$ $o much double talk around thi$ i$$ue, it'$ not even funny.

Have you read the ECMA responses?

[Spikeles]

Having read TFA and the PDF of the ECMA responses to the complaints, i can see why they decided to fast-track it, many of the complaints by countries are thoroughly debunked as misunderstandings of the specification. The rest are supposed to be resolved during the 5 month process.

As for TFA, they started out talking about fast-tracking the standard, then went on about totally unrelated and unsubstantiated stories about intimidation.

I may be flamed for it, but i call FUD on the part of Groklaw for this "story", the process is working as intended.

Re:Have you read the ECMA responses?

[grcumb]

Having read TFA and the PDF of the ECMA responses to the complaints, i can see why they decided to fast-track it, many of the complaints by countries are thoroughly debunked as misunderstandings of the specification.

That's fine, but it only takes one complaint ('contradiction' in ECMA parlance) to stop the process, and there was one such provided by three separate national bodies. It stated the objection, raised elsewhere in this thread, that elements in the standard such as autoSpaceLikeWord95, which basically state, 'do things like we did in this version of this application', are contradictory to the the very essence of a document standard.

ECMA's response is not at all satisfactory. First, they provide the self-serving argument that they're reproducing the state of the art, then they say that they can throw in any missing details later in the process, then they conclude with a statement that is patently absurd:

As already discussed, the OpenXML committee chose to take a different route in defining document settings. If, however, it is decided that more documentation should be provided on the elements in question, or if the elements should be removed from the standard, that is a more appropriate matter for the 5-month ballot, and is not, in fact, a contradiction.

We can sum this up as 'We accept that nobody has ever done this before, but we don't think that contradicts other standards. Anyway, even if it does, let's just agree to talk about this later.' Ultimately, ECMA is saying, 'Whatever faults may exist, even if they're unprecedented, let's just get on with it. We'll figure things out as we go.' That is hardly what one would expect of any self-respecting standards body.

Re:Have you read the ECMA responses?

[segedunum]

Having read TFA and the PDF of the ECMA responses to the complaints, i can see why they decided to fast-track it, many of the complaints by countries are thoroughly debunked as misunderstandings of the specification.

The document you've linked to there simply repeats all of the lies and half-truths that Groklaw and elsewhere have pointed out. For example:

Open and XML-conformant independence from proprietary formats and features

There is certainly no evidence for independence from proprietary formats and features, because it is modelling a previous format and an application that are proprietary!

In contrast with OpenXML's design goals, according to http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/office/charte r.php, ODF was designed to be "suitable for office documents containing text, spreadsheets, charts, and graphical documents," and while it mandates "compatibility with the W3C XML", and suggests that it "should 'borrow' from similar, existing standards wherever possible and permitted." the charter does not list as a requirement, compatibility with the majority of existing documents.

I really would love to know how a completely new format is backwards compatible with the old one, apart from every element of the old format being dumped into a new and incompatible one. Again, Microsoft seeks to confuse the format with the application, Microsoft Office, here. It is not the responsibility of the format to be backwards compatible, because that would just be useless. It is the job of the applications to convert the old format effectively and accurately into the new, and it is up to the applications to be backwards compatible. It has absolutely nothing to do with the format, as Microsoft claims, but to be honest I wouldn't be surprised if they couldn't separate the format from the application in their minds either.

In short, we're back to square one with the same questions, problems and no answers.

As for TFA, they started out talking about fast-tracking the standard, then went on about totally unrelated and unsubstantiated stories about intimidation.

The Computerworld interview with MA's former CIO had him specifically state that he had to continually kick Microsoft's government affairs person out of his office. I take that seriously to be perfectly honest.

Re:Have you read the ECMA responses?

[iabervon]

Having read the ECMA response, I think that it should be taken as gospel. OpenXML should be ratified as a standard for "faithfully representing the majority of existing office documents in form and functionality", and it can therefore peacefully coexist with the use of ODF for all newly created documents. In fact, all of these countries are giving entirely inappropriate comments, because they seem to be thinking that this is a proposed standard for office documents, when it is actually a proposed standard for representing old office documents written in other formats. Furthermore, a number of vendors have been similarly confused, because it is inappropriate to write software to create OpenXML documents, aside from the case of converting older documents while preserving the exact text, down to the kerning of the text. The appropriate use of software for OpenXML is to convert older formats to OpenXML for archival, and to print these documents and embed sections of them verbatim in new (ODF) documents, when it is necessary to cite the exact formatting of the original document.

I expect that Microsoft will be removing OpenXML support from Microsoft Office shortly, in accordance with the clarified goals of OpenXML as a standardized format, and, instead, implementing ODF for newly created documents and for documents which only need to retain the content of imported documents.

Re:Have you read the ECMA responses?

[Anonymous Coward]

The rest are supposed to be resolved during the 5 month process. Most of the comments claim this. I would not call "If there is any disagreement on the ..., however, that should be addressed during the 5-month ballot." as a "debunking", I'd call it bullshit.

BTW the IMHO worst claim, confusing name, is not addressed at all.

Re:Have you read the ECMA responses?

[ymenager]

Debunked ?????

You do not 'debunk' the objections of a country regarding the specifications of a multinational standard.

What you can do, is to explain to them why you believe their objections are incorrect, and if you convince them that you are correct, they will then drop their objections, and let the standard proceed. If they don't change their mind, it means that YOU are wrong, and that you must address the issues they have raised, if you wish the submission to become a standard.

However, to blatantly ignore them, and push forward even when there is such large amount of objections, on fast-track, to make it even worse, is to clearly demonstrate that the ISO process is a COMPLETE FARCE. Nothing more than a rubber stamp body for whoever can lubricate the right pockets

Re:Have you read the ECMA responses?

[TropicalCoder]

many of the complaints by countries are thoroughly debunked as misunderstandings of the specification. The rest are supposed to be resolved during the 5 month process.

I have to assume that rather than being a paid Microsoft shill, you just don't know what you are saying, and are swallowing the ECMA's position whole, without probably even realizing it. What you missed in the PDF that you probably never read were the actual summarized contradictions, country by country, toward the end of the document. They are really an astonishing condemnation of Ecma OpenXML.

Just take a look at this single item...

Kenya 5.12.11 Issue KE11

ECMA-376 contradicts ISO JTC 1 Directives. The contents of the ECMA-376 draft may be detrimental to the reputation of IEC or ISO if processed by JTC 1 on the fast track. The European Commission's DG Competition is considering whether to initiate an antitrust proceeding into Microsoft's alleged wielding of the ECMA-376 file formats as an anti-competitive weapon[4]. The principal justification offered by ECMA International for standardization of ECMA-376 in direct contradiction of ISO 26300, is to accommodate any tags needed for Microsoft Office's legacy binary file format. This specification for the binary file formats are not included in the ECMA-376 specification. Microsoft's alleged refusal to disclose the specifications[5] for its binary file formats is also the subject of a complaint being considered by DG Competition, and is at least arguably a violation of the 2004 DG Competition order[6]. Were ECMA-376 allowed to continue on the fast track there is grave danger that CMA-376 will become publicly embroiled in antitrust charges and proceedings before the vote is taken on its adoption as an ISO standard. ISO would also be left in the embarrassing position of having fast tracked ECMA-376 through the JTC 1 process without a public record that potential anti-competitive aspects of the draft were carefully considered. Moreover, adopting ECMA-376 as an ISO standard without those specifications would put ISO in the incredible position of having granted Microsoft a monopoly on the migration of documents stored in its Office legacy binary formats to ECMA-376 formats. That is directly at odds with ISO's mission of ensuring that its standards do not "create unnecessary obstacles to international trade." Therefore, ECMA-376 should be diverted from the fast-track process so that risk of damage to ISO's reputation can be avoided. It is time to go slow and await resolution of the DG Competition investigation.

I won't raise the same worn out objection about slashdotters never reading the TFA, because there was a lot of material to digest, and the PDF simply doesn't allow fast scrolling to skim to the relevant material. It's a real shame that GrokLaw didn't summarize it. At a minimum, it should be made available as HTML - and I am sure, will be made available by Google if not already so. It's also a shame the probably the majority of slashdotters have jobs or families or other such commitments and didn't have the time to read this exteremely important document tonight. This is so important that must be brought up again, with the document properly summarized.

Re:Have you read the ECMA responses?

[Spikeles]

have to assume that rather than being a paid Microsoft shill, you just don't know what you are saying, and are swallowing the ECMA's position whole, without probably even realizing it. What you missed in the PDF that you probably never read were the actual summarized contradictions, country by country, toward the end of the document. They are really an astonishing condemnation of Ecma OpenXML.

Assumptions are the mother of all fuck-ups, and you assumed wrong. I did indeed read all of the document including the comments towards the end.

Perhaps you didn't read the full document, did you miss this bit?(ECMA response)

Issue KE11 (5.12.11): Ecma is not in a position to comment on any legal issue, including possible antitrust 9 actions considered by the European Commission, and Ecma considers that these issues are not relevant in the 10 standardization context as long as the Ecma code of conduct is adhered to (which we believe it is).

Re:Have you read the ECMA responses?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice answer to wrong question. The problem was not "Ecma code of conduct" but ISO's.

I honestly now believe the only "Ecma code of conduct" is money.

Re:Have you read the ECMA responses?

[Rudisaurus]

The referenced Computerworld article is here (for all those who haven't yet read it; I myself hadn't).

Re:Have you read the ECMA responses?

[hilton_a]

The lack of documentation for 'autoSpaceLikeWord95' is hardly a showstopper. Apparently the ODF spec also has omissions in the documentation. Many have given examples that those omissions are far worse than those in OpenXml.

I don't see how improving the documentation of a proposed standard is a bad idea. That is patently absurd.

Re:Have you read the ECMA responses?

[hilton_a]

Have you read the ECMA response? Debunk is a pretty accurate description. To me it seems a number of the 'objections' are sourced from popular myths propagated by such sites as Groklaw.

Re:Have you read the ECMA responses?

[TropicalCoder]

Assumptions are the mother of all fuck-ups

Indeed

You are correct to point that out, and I am wrong in making assumption that you did not read the scathing criticisms of Ecma OpenXML by most of the inner committee member countries. You say you read the entire document, and we must then accept that you have. If we cannot assume anything about how you arrived at your conclusions, we are left with a complete mystery as to how you could possibly endorse a proposed "standard" that goes completely against the ISO raison d'être, and appears to be designed to further promote Microsoft lock in. The Ecma response to Issue KE11 (5.12.11) does absolutely nothing to "thoroughly debunk" Kenya's complaint, as you state. Your conclusion seems to be a pretty strong endorsement of Microsoft's position. This opens up a real opportunity for you. You should put up a blog elaborating on your support for Microsoft's position, and perhaps they will send you a cool laptop. Furthermore, if you share that blog with us all, perhaps we will realize that we have all been just wrong about Microsoft all this time, and learn to accept them and love them as our overlords

Re:Have you read the ECMA responses?

[ivan256]

Apparently the ODF spec also has omissions in the documentation. Many have given examples that those omissions are far worse than those in OpenXml.

I wasn't aware that something had changed and suddenly two wrongs make a right.

Re:Have you read the ECMA responses?

[Spikeles]

I never said once that i endorsed the Ecma OpenXML standard. I said that i saw no reason not to fast track it, and that procedures set down are being followed correctly. The criticisms are certainly valid, but they have also been replied to and addressed(or will be addressed later). My opinion on the actual final standard itself is of no consequence.

Re:Have you read the ECMA responses?

[grcumb]

The lack of documentation for 'autoSpaceLikeWord95' is hardly a showstopper.

No, it's not a showstopper, but it's a damned good reason not to put a spec on the fast track, which was the issue at hand.

Re:Have you read the ECMA responses?

[hilton_a]

'Fast Track' means there are still six months left in the process before voting begins. I'd hate to think what the alternative is.

There is nothing wrong with putting a spec on fast track, especially one as important as this. I imagine the reason it has been put onto 'fast track' is because the process has already taken far too long (ECMA have stated that during their work with the spec it has grown from 2000 to 6000 pages). It is far far better documented that ODF, so what the hell is the problem? The problem is misinformation and bias largely from the vocal FOSS groups.

Re:Have you read the ECMA responses?

[hilton_a]

So why did ODF get through as an ISO standard? Where's the brouhaha about that?

Investments and Intentional Waste.

[twitter]

Their "old binary cruft" preserves backwards compatibility. Are you against that for some reason?

No, it was designed to break compatibility with other Word Processors back when their was competition on M$ platforms. They are abandoning those formats now and may or may not preserve that compatibility. It's obvious to me as a user that they did not care much about it in the past, because old documents lost their format regularly before I decided to not use stuff from M$.

Is there some sort of predisposition against protecting an investment in your world?

Not at all. I'm worried about user's investment in time and effort, which the M$ upgrade train routinely wastes. That's a much larger investment than M$ ever put into anything.

Re:Investments and Intentional Waste.

[dedazo]

I'm sorry, you lost me at the second "M$". Try again?

Groklaw not the most reliable source on OOXML

[Anonymous Coward]

Groklaw is rather good at trying to trash OOXML.
The site has joined with IBM and Sun's blogger and OASIS laywer Andy Upgrove to attack OOXML in every posting about the subject.
And stating that ODF might have it's flaws as well as commenting that the findings on OOXML as found on their pages might not be entirly correct will get those comments moderated away.

--
The Wraith
http://ooxmlhoaxes.blogspot.com/

Re:Groklaw not the most reliable source on OOXML

[Kalriath]

I particularly liked how she referred to New Zealand's opinions as "quaint".

Stupid cow. We may not be a world power, but we aren't bloody quaint.

Re:Groklaw not the most reliable source on OOXML

[kilgortrout]

You can say that again. I have several kiwi friends and they can be pretty tough birds to deal with.

Re:Groklaw not the most reliable source on OOXML

[Anonymous Coward]

Stupid cow.

Oh, how quaint! :)

(Pssst ... nobody says "stupid cow" anymore!)

OK, I'll try again.

[twitter]

Is there some sort of predisposition against protecting an investment in your world?

Is there a reason you place M$'s interests and investments before your own?

Re:OK, I'll try again.

[dedazo]

I'm sorry, unless you're making one of your "I hate M$ and so should you" leaps of faith, you'll have to go back and show me where I said or implied that.

Microsoft's interests are parallel to my own insofar as their software does what I need it to do. Otherwise I wouldn't be their customer. Or Sun's. Or IBM's. I find that mixing business with religion just doesn't work. Best tool for the job and all that.

Re:OK, I'll try again.

[Anonymous Coward]

Since you appear to not have gotten it the first time, he was implying that you're a tool by using "M$". Then you do it again.

Are you a 12-year-old or just retarded? Honestly, as soon as I see "M$" in an argument, that person's opinion is automatically nullified.

Re:OK, I'll try again.

[bersl2]

I find that mixing business with religion just doesn't work. Best tool for the job and all that. "Best tool for the job" is only one tool for the job, and it's not a very good one for long-term sustainability. Though Microsoft's interests may parallel yours in the short term, you must consider that their interests in the long term are unrelated at best or opposite yours at worst in the long term. No long-term profit for non-monopolists and all that.

Re:OK, I'll try again.

[dedazo]

you must consider that their interests in the long term are unrelated at best or opposite yours at worst in the long term

It's been fine so far - 16 years and counting. I have a real hard time with these "in the long term you're screwed" when the alternatives to Microsoft's software didn't exist even three years ago. In this industry 16 years is as good as it gets. Isn't RedHat obsoleting their RHEL installations after three years now? Yeah, that's where I want to go, away from the "evil" Microsoft. And the "evil" IBM. Either that or sign up as a C hacker? Thanks, but I'm fine.

Plain text

[HomelessInLaJolla]

Let's just start over. I'm perfectly happy with plain text.

Re:Plain text

[Anonymous Coward]

For most things, so am I. For everything else, there's pdf and rtf.

oh, no!

[kirils]

oh, no! ... well, let's all put our hands together and pray.

You keep using that word...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Their "old binary cruft" preserves backwards compatibility. Are you against that for some reason?

No it doesn't. Old versions of Word don't understand OOXML, so there's NOTHING to be "backwards compatible" with. Instead, what they *could* do is to translate the old crap into well-documented standards.

For example, rather than add to a new standard some features like "format like ancient versions of Word Perfect" (without telling anyone what that *means*), they could redo the margins, line breaks, and whatever else is actually required to make the document look the way it's supposed to. If they did that, only the conversion program would ever have to care about how WP6 did things.

As is, *every* OOXML program has to know and care about how WP6 (and other ancient programs) once did things. That's stupid. That's bloat. And it doesn't help backwards compatibility at all--WP6 doesn't understand OOXML and I sincerely doubt it ever will.

So please think your arguments through before presenting them. In exactly which use case do you think that people will benefit from such cruft?

Re:You keep using that word...

[dwater]

I suppose Microsoft could produce a product that would comply with the standard. It would have to be a product that combined all the previous versions of MS Word/etc into one package (otherwise it is just emulating the output of the previous packages and doesn't cover all the cases of possible input).

No one else could produce such a product though, and so no one else could claim compliance with the standard. Kind of pointless as a standard, I think.

I suspect that Microsoft actually don't have the formats defined - the format is simply 'what the s/w produces'. They would have to go back and try to define the format using the source and or studying the output of the product. Sounds like an aweful lot of work to me and I'm not surprised Microsoft doesn't want to do it (if it's even possible) - assuming they don't.

The lady sings the blues

[westlake]

The industry is fifteen years down the wrong path.

The sad fact is that computer technology was wrestled away from the true technologists who invented it and was thrust headlong to the public sector by the businessmen, politicians, stock brokers, and bankers who saw a massive profit potential in it but had no real knowledge or appreciation of the intellectual advancements which created it.

Cry me a river.

The computer was military and commercial tech from Day 1.

The technologist was never ultimately in control of its deployment or evolution.

"The wrong path" - market-driven - brings the PC and the Internet into every middle class home and office. The golden age of the Geek ends with AOL and Windows 3.1.

Re:The lady sings the blues

[ldj]

The tone of your response implies that you're in favor of the path that has been taken thus far. Speaks volumes about your opinion in my book.

I tend to agree with the GP. At this stage of the game, I would have hoped we wouldn't still be dealing with incompatible document formats. And I *certainly* don't want or expect to see us end up with a technological dictatorship.

The information age is still very young -- barely out of diapers. In the long run, most common data formats should -- no, /need/ -- to be open and free if we expect the future of information technology and communications to be equitable to all and not just another control vector applied to the human race. Obviously, as communications technology continues to grow, so will its importance in our daily lives. I just can't imagine a future (at least not one in which there is widespread intellectual growth) in which the basic data formats used for communications and archiving are owned and controlled, let alone by a single company. That would be like a company owning and controlling growth of a common spoken language.

Re:The lady sings the blues

[ringm000]

>That would be like a company owning and controlling growth of a common spoken language.

Wow! What an idea...

Re:The lady sings the blues

[ldj]

Wow! What an idea...

Yeah, well I've got dibs on it in case you're thinking about patenting it. :)

Re:The lady sings the blues

[Hymer]

The case is in fact much worse than that... because of MS computers are only a faster version of machines from the early 1990'ies. MS has, due to the influence on hw-makers thru OEM-program, stopped the development of the PC platform.
MS is responsible for the "I386 compatible" hw monoculture we are seeing now. Both Alpha, Sparc and PowerPC were/are much more advanced solutions with features on chip Intel can't make (Itanic is more advaned too but I consider it a joke).

Gotta agree with the Opera guy

[Skeith]

I remember awhile ago an employee at Opera pointed out that using html and css would create a much easier to adopt document standard. Since it is well understood and universally used. There are a half dozen html renderer's that could all be used to read content on all platforms.

This has many advantages over everything that is being offered now. A universally viewable open well understood and easily learned document standard? That makes too much sense to go anywhere.

Re:Gotta agree with the Opera guy

[tokul]

Opera person is Håkon Wium Lie

I think some other person explained that html and css don't provide required document layout controls. They are designed for display and not for publication. Can't find a link.

Standards Precedence

[fostware]

Microsoft have already worked with standards...

Office 97 saved Word 95/6.0 documents as RTF - and that is as close to a standard as Microsoft will ever get...

Fast track when standards bodies don't understand?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your argument (that the comments were misguided and show misunderstanding) is hardly a reason to fast track. If national standards bodies don't yet understand the standard then they are not yet ready to accept it. One of the biggest problems with the standard is its size. Until the standards bodies are able to make sensible comments and recommendations, it should not be proceeding, except perhaps to extinction.

Remember MS POSIX Compliance?

[flyingfsck]

MS Windows is POSIX compliant as well, though in practise, you need Cygwin for any POSIX programs. Just like the POSIX trick, the standardization is just to get a tick mark on government RFPs.

Ugh, more of the same.

[twitter]

Microsoft ALREADY added ODF support. Microsoft provides technical and architectural guidance, and pays for that project. I'm all for bashing MS where it's due, but try not to bash them on topics where you're wrong.

Oh, give me a break. M$'s behavior is right on track with previous behavior and may even surpass it in some ways. All of it's silly, because they could have simply used the freely available and better format and everyone would have been happy. No, not them, they have to use their own which was "created for a different purpose." Oh yeah, I'd almost like to know what that purpose is outside of typesetting text, spreadsheets and presentations.

Once upon a time they "supported" Word Perfect too. Word Perfect did a much better job. M$ document conversion was all one way, but at least they did it. This time they are simply "supporting" other people's efforts to help them out.

With ODF specifications already published and in use, M$ could just code it themselves and have already included it in Office 2007. KDE put it into kword, kformula and other programs months ago and made it their default format. But noooo, M$ users are going to have to write and download the converter themselves, nice. It's also nice of them to release it under a "very liberal BSD-like license" so they can suck it up later and lock everyone else out.

I also noticed the noise about the Novel version that does similar for MSOfficeXML. Again, a stunning underachievement for the world's richest software company.

Thanks for pointing to the Source Forge Page. The list of ODF features not available in MSOfficeXML is amazing. The M$ format, despite it's 6000 pages of specs, is feature poor. I'll bet M$ did not know they would be paying for that kind of advertisement.

Throw in the pile of patent uncertainty M$ is waving around, and MSOfficeXML is something I don't want to touch with a 10 foot pole. If their goofey new format takes off, they are going to be hammering everyone else with those patents. Hopefully, people are just going to use Google Office or download Open Office instead of paying $400 for the next roach motel for their work.

One M$ Wag claimed "the format wars are over," before they have user one. I'll believe that when the secret format has gone unused and is long forgotten. With patents to back it, this format war is the nastiest yet. For them to win, everyone else must lose.

Re:Ugh, more of the same.

[The Bungi]

One M$ Wag claimed

The "M$ wag" where you posted your brilliant "bubba" flamebait? Which the guy actually took the time to answer in good faith? Is that it? Feels good insulting people on the internets, doesn't it? Calling them names behind their backs? For someone who complains so much about how "insulting" people who don't agree with you are, you sure know how to "dish it out" like a big tough dude. Way to go.

Re:Ugh, more of the same.

[twitter]

The "M$ wag" where you posted your brilliant "bubba" flamebait [msdn.com]? ... Is that it? Feels good insulting people on the internets, doesn't it? Calling them names behind their backs? For someone who complains so much about how "insulting" people who don't agree with you are, you sure know how to "dish it out" like a big tough dude. Way to go.

Well, no, I did not mention anyone in particular, nor did I point to that site where you can find the same M$ party line as you will find everywhere in the M$ press. So, no, I did not call Jones a wag. I'll wait till I know more about him to call him names. At this point, all I know is that he's working for the Beast and I feel sorry for him.

People like you, Bungi, are very insulting and you are one of many I have to put up with here. There's a whole cloud of assholes who all write the same kind of bullshit under different screen names. I post at random times, but they are always there like the paid guards they are. I'm reasonably certain that M$ pays these people, just like they paid for Steve Barkto, Compuserve BBS spam, letters from dead people against the M$ anti-trust case and so on and so forth in the info-war hall of astroturf shame.

He answered but it's a disappointing answer. I don't really feel like looking through his "many previous posts on my blog dealing with this issue." If he's got a real answer, he could point to it. Nor did I find it in his history file. Using my memory, I get an answer that's opposite his when I look at that file. In 2002, when Sun submitted to Oasis, M$ was using "XML" for a decidedly second rate html implementation. At that point, they could easily have jumped on the bandwagon and helped make something good for everyone.

Re:Ugh, more of the same.

[Hal_Porter]

twitter, please read this carefully. Following this advice will make Slashdot a better place for everyone, including yourself...

Which one do we use now?

[nbritton]

So which standard do we use, wait... How can two standards that cover the same thing, while being incompatible, be standards?

Lisa Rachjel needs to be fired... I wonder how much bribery money was involved to get this bitch to do it.

Re:Which one do we use now?

[hilton_a]

This should not get a score of 2.

Re:Which one do we use now?

[Torodung]

Or perhaps Ms. Rachjel feels that it's better to end this charade quickly, rather than debate about it for ages, all the while allow Microsoft spokesweasels the PR bonus of claiming that they are "working with the International Standards community?"

"Fast track" just means you get a quick answer. It's a signifier of PRIORITY, not quality. You streamline the work process because it is IMPORTANT and can't wait, which this *is*. If Microsoft wants to talk, with their 90%+ market share, it is by definition important, especially with a piece of software as ubiquitous as Office. A lot of developers would like to be able to finally work seamlessly with it, instead of reverse engineering or just guessing. The protests were properly lodged now, because they need to be considered *rapidly* if fast track is to have any hope of doing what can be years of feasibility study in such a short space of time.

But "fast track" is by no means assurance of acceptance, and even acceptance is no guarantee of widespread adoption, and, in the end, if the whole "standard" is really so bad to begin with, even enthusiastic adoption *will* result in a failed implementation, and a resultant mess that will lower Microsoft's standing with their customers for decades. The more enthusiasm, the bigger the mess, in fact.

A successful standard is one that gets adopted and allows software to interoperate. Why is everyone so afraid of this abortion when it is clear that it will fail because MS doesn't recognize the *basis* of standards based design in the first place?

But this time the abortion (if it doesn't shape up) will be on Microsoft's corporate letterhead. There will be no one else they can blame for its failure.

I'd prefer that the standards process work and they fix this broken mess, of course. It's better for MS, and it's better for all developers.

--
Toro

Fast Track process.

[miguel]

Most people do not understand that the fast track process is only a way of accelerating the process, it is not a mechanism of rubber stamping the standard, there are still six months of work ahead before the actual voting can begin.

Details about how this work can be found in Brian Jones' blog:

http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/archive/2007/01/ 29/explanation-of-the-iso-fast-track-process.aspx

Miguel.

Re:Fast Track process.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are you always apologizing for Microsoft, Miguel? Every time they sneeze you and Nat Friedman have a big circle jerk over it. Why don't you guys just go to work for them already.

Re:Fast Track process.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello,

it is inaccurate when you say six months of work.
the way it works is the following:
- the publication is proposed to ISO through the fast-track procedure (national standardisation bodies and some organisations can do that, ECMA in this case).
- there is indeed a six months review period within the national bodies where these bodies elaborate their position towards the candidate. At the end of the review period is a vote, where national bodies votes are cast. If more than 25% of the P-members (participant members, in opposition to O-members (observers)) are against the proposal, it fails becoming an ISO standard.
- However, before total failure is a ballot resolution meeting (BRM) to which the countries having a negative position have to attend. Usually the negatives votes come with comments and reasons why the proposal is considered bad. In the BRM, national body representatives + experts try and find a satisfactory solution to the issues raised. This way, some negative votes may be turned into positive (maybe the opposite way around also).

What I think is misleading in Miguel's message is that we may think these six months allow for work on the proposal. It is not the case and at the end, the proposal remains the same and if there are enough positive votes, comments are handled just for the sake of pseudo democracy. The deed is done.

My two cents.

Microsoft Office != OOXML

[Anonymous Coward]

It has absolutely nothing to do with not selling their software, it has to do with their standards. You're a troll, and a goddamn obvious one at that, but I'll refute your claims nonetheless.

1. Microsoft publish their format in an effort to standardise their format. That's not necessarily good or bad.
2. The format's specifications are far from complete, and in many places say nothing more than 'do what MS Word Whatever did'. That's a bad thing.
3. The format includes backwards compatibility measures that require direct contravention of current ISO standards. That's an incredibly bad thing

This is a textbook case of Microsoft trying to impose their own format to ensure vendor lock-in. That's a bad thing. Standards are there to be adhered to. Without a complete standard that cannot be done by anyone but Microsoft. If Microsoft make a better product at an affordable price, they can easily maintain their stranglehold on the market. The real reason they are afraid of removing vendor lock-in is because of how uncompetitive their prices are... a true standard -- and the competition it would bring -- is not in their best interests.

It's not about standards, it's about corruption

[walterbyrd]

Whether ODF or OOXML are good standards, or not, is beside the point.

It's the process that is being studied here. Why were the detailed objections of 5 nations brushed aside, and the decision made by one person? Supposedly, if even one nation objects, that is supposed to derail the "fast track" process.

This stinks to high-heaven of msft corruption.

That is not a correction.

[patiodragon]

You said MICROSOFT already added ODF support. Then you give a link to SOURCEFORGE. That doesn't make any sense. If MS added it, you wouldn't have to go somewhere else to get it, eh?

If the stinky pinko commies over at sourceforge could make it work, then why didn't the company do it themselves and include it in their product? Maybe that would have given people the "freedom to innovate"?

Re:That is not a correction.

[Kalriath]

MICROSOFT contracted and funded an open source project. You'd be surprised to learn that Microsoft has several projects on Sourceforge (WiX being another example). Microsoft's open source solutions are NEVER hosted at microsoft.com. They're either at CodePlex for .NET projects, or SourceForge for everything else. (Shared Source is a different story).

I don't agree with the Opera guy

[shis-ka-bob]

HTML and CSS are a great solution for screen displays, an OK solution for printing (assuming CSS 2.1). So, HTML/CSS would be a great solution for presentation software. But they are not particularly good at expressing structured documents like a spreadsheets, relational data and rich text documents. I don't seem how HTML tables would be a natural starting point for a spreadsheet, for example.

The original use of HTML was to create links to rich content, which in the case of CERN would be things like postscript files generated by LaTeX. Postscript has been effectively replaced by PDF files, and LaTeX has been (in)effectively replaced by word processors. The original model is still pretty good, hypertext for linking documents that are written in a markup language that expresses content and document structure and displayed in a portable display format. These are three rather different needs, although I will agree that HTML has become much better as a display language, it still isn't the equal for PDFs for print.

The Opera CTO, Hakon Wium Lie, also stated of OOXML and ODF, 'Both are basically memory dumps with angle brackets around them'. If this was true, why did the KOffice team adopt ODF before it was an ISO standard? Surely they could find more enjoyable coding problems than making KOffice able to read and write OpenOffice.org memory dumps. To me, ODF looks a lot less like a memory dump and a lot more like markup (HTML) than does OOXML.

This could actually bite MS in the a$$

[jhfry]

Think about this... they release the nonstandard standard and push the software out to their large corporate vendors... then one of their vendors tells one of it's developers to design a tool that can parse the 50,000 documents and find all instances of the word "porn" for example.

The poor programmer causes a stink and shows his boss the set of encyclopedias that lays out the "open" format and tells him that he cannot do it because there are important peices missing.

The large corporate customer demands a refund and damages for the cost of migrating to MS Office... and switches yet again to an ODF standard. There's another major migration, this time telling the world that MS's "open" format is damaged.

MS will not die overnight... it's gonna take a constant beating before it ever adapts to, or folds under, the demands of the people to keep their information accessible.

I say, let MS keep manipulating the market. People are not stupid, I'd be willing to bet that a larger part of the people making IT related decisions are anxiously awaiting the time they can kick MS out their door... and as alternatives continue to grow in power and reputation, and MS continues to tarnish their reputation by misleading consumers, eventually they will be replaced with more consumer friendly alternatives.

A few (10 or so) years ago, I'd never touched a Mac or Linux box... now I have a couple of each, and every job I have had in the last 10 years came with the rollout of Linux server and a bunch of open source software. Even non technical people I meet in my consulting work are asking about Linux servers and Mac desktops because the heard from someone that had a good experience moving from windows.

MS is not dead, nor are they close... but they are closer than they were a few years ago. It takes a LONG time for power to shift when so much of it is wielded by one entity... but it does shift eventually.

Then it's not a standard is it? (n/t)

[kholburn]

Then it's not a standard is it if it requires certification to work?

The decision of one person

[Attila the Bun]

The move seems to be the decision of one person, Lisa Rachjel, secretariat of the ISO Joint Technical Committee, according to a comment made by her.

The implication being that committees make better decisions than individuals? Please, be serious!

Re:The decision of one person

[wildstoo]

The implication being that committees make better decisions than individuals? Please, be serious!

I think the implication is that individuals are cheaper to persuade, easier to intimidate, or are simply suspect in the first place because they need not consult anyone else about their decisions or reach a consensus, no matter how evil or ill-advised their decisions may be.

I'm not saying that's the case here, I'm saying that's my understanding of the way the summary is phrased.

Of course, it also serves to mark her as a target for the ire of the OSS community. Microsoft collaborator! Boo! Hiss! etc.

Anyway, committees make decisions just as good or bad as an individual would in most cases, they just take much longer to do it. :P

Re:The decision of one person

[Attila the Bun]

Of course, it also serves to mark her as a target for the ire of the OSS community. Microsoft collaborator! Boo! Hiss! etc.

This is a big cultural problem, and it's everywhere. It has become almost impossible for individuals to take even minor decisions, because they are vunerable to personal and professional attacks from people with vested interests. Therefore a committee has to decide everything, down to the colour of the office stationary. Committees have their place, but most of the time they are over-conservative and unneeded, except to protect individuals.

We should encourage bright individuals to do their work without constant fear of reprisals, rather than run endless committee meetings. Of course the dim individuals would then have nothing to do...

Nobody seems to get the point

[guruevi]

The main reason you should refuse to adopt Open XML is because it is not 'OPEN' in the true sense of the word. If you read Groklaw's points on it, you'll notice that the current format is closed but there is a 'covenant not to sue', the problem is that as soon as you (the programmer or your company, or OOo) extends the format or Microsoft comes along and extends or changes the format slightly for Office 2008, all those license and covenants go down the drain and the format becomes closed again, but then it will be a closed ISO standard.

Re:Nobody seems to get the point

[Wraith, The]

You are the person not getting the point. If MS were to create a new version of OOXML and not license it in the same way it cannot become a standard. The standard will then remain the old version and MS Office would not comply to a standard anymore. That would be a stupid move. On the other hand the covenant not to sue made by Sun in regards to ODF format specifically states that if Sun is not involved in the developement of a new version than the covenant does not apply to that v ersion. So sun has the same hold on development of the ODF format as MS does on the OOXML format. However development for MS is crucial for it's products and whilst Sun could just hold up development of ODF indefinitly if MS were to use it because for Sun the format is no primary business.

Lisa alone should be in charge of all standards?

[walterbyrd]

Is that what you are saying? Everybody else involved in the ISO should just go away, and leave everything to one person?

This was a procedural moment, not a descision one.

[Wraith, The]

The national bodies get to vote at the end of the 5 motnh nballot period that is now starting. The early contradictions review is not ment to block the fasttracking process by ISO. It makes it possible for the body that entered the proposal to see whether the proposal is can continue or that amendments need to be made or if the proposal better be withdrawn. As Ecma has answered the issues raised by the national bodies and seems not intent on withdrawing the proposal or amending it at this time the normal procedure would dictate the fasttrack proces continues. It could still be that during the 5 month ballot period Ecma amends the proposal if the national bodies require more than what was in Ecma's first answer. also possible is that Ecma makes a commitment to alter certain features in a future version (like OASIS is doing with ODF). For instance ecma could commit to removing bitmask from the spec in v1.1 and add additional support for iso dates in spreadhseet cells.

Needs XSL to translate to usable XML

[a1mint]

I've read that Microsoft's "open document" XML is so convoluted, the only thing that can use it is MS Office itself. But, they underestimate the creative people. Some German hacker in some basement somewhere, will write an amazing set of XSL files that'll translate their proprietary "open" XML format into an easy to digest nicely organized XML tree. Microsoft will continue to barf out food that their own dogs won't even be able to eat.

Re:Fast track when standards bodies don't understa

[Wraith, The]

The size is not a problem. There is already a full implementation of the spec which is not the case for the much smaller ODF specification. Size does not nescesarily represent more complexity. Also in fasttracking you do not need to judge every element of the spec as you fastrack an existing standard but you need to look at thing like if this existing technology adds something additional to ISO standards and if the market can use this as a standard for office documents and if the spec contradicts the use of other ISO specs. Most complaints made by the national bodies were provoked by a mailing campaign by Groklaw to the national bodies (seeing identical issues raised). However the Groklaw issues are either not really issues or mostly non-relevant in a fastracking procedure which has no requirement to validate each element in the spec. It is good to remember that a for a complex standard like this it is unlikely that the first version is 100% correct. There is time to improve the standard in future version and ISO can pro-activly ask Ecma to commit to cwertain changes in such future version during this proces.

it is quaint!

[Xtifr]

The claim that MSOXML is completely unnecessary because ODF exists is quaint! Even if it were correct (and it's not an unreasonable opinion, and certainly one to which PJ is sympathetic), it ignores certain political realities. MSOXML is clearly on the table because MS wishes to avoid providing its competitors with a level playing field at all costs. The opinion would be quaint no matter who said it! World power or otherwise. So why don't you take the bloody chip of your shoulder, old chap?