Slashdot Mirror
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."
If people didnt jump on whatever the newest Microsoft software is they wouldnt get away with this sort of thing.
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
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)?
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.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
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.
- Microsoft publish their format in an effort to standardise their format. That's not necessarily good or bad.
- 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.
- 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.