OOXML Denied INCITS V1 Approval

Xenographic writes "INCITS V1, the US group responsible for the US vote over whether or not ANSI will grant fast-track approval to Microsoft's OOXML format, failed to reach the 2/3 consensus required to recommend OOXML to ANSI. What makes this vote interesting is the graph in the article, showing all the new Microsoft business partners who joined INCITS just this year to vote for OOXML. The INCITS Executive Board will now deliberate further, until they can come to some agreement on what to recommend to ANSI, but it's pretty clear that Microsoft is pushing OOXML as hard as it can."

Comments

wha?

[Anonymous Coward]

IDK, my BFF Jill?

Re:wha?

[Anonymous Coward]

aww, c'mon that wasn't a troll.
Someone please explain what those 500 Acronyms are for please, there's probably +1-3 informative in it for you.

Re:wha?

[CastrTroy]

Does anybody else find it really confusing that MS calls it OOXML. To me, OOXML would mean OpenOffice XML, but then I have to remember that it's ODF, which is the Open Document Format, because it's not specific to OpenOffice. Does anybody think that Microsoft gave it this name specifically to confuse people who would see the acronym and think of OpenOffice?

Re:wha?

[boxxertrumps]

No, no... Its "office" THEN "open" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML

Re:wha?

[CastrTroy]

Exactly. It looks like they gave it this name specifically to confuse people. I think OpenOffice should sue them for trademark infringement. I'm pretty sure MS would sue me if I released a product called PointShare portal server.

Re:wha?

[jack455]

it's also not eXtensible because they fail at desribing what it should do, it's not markup for the same reason. as ooxml it fails to be anything but OL. (I won't even make the argument that it's NOT open. Duh.)

Re:wha?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can tell your bff Jill, that i'm taking away your phone.

Re:wha?

[Anonymous Coward]

OOXML is Office Open XML, I don't see how *anyone* could confuse the Open Office.

Disapprove

[Anonymous Coward]

Without comments.

Approve.

[Anonymous Coward]

Any denial of approval for something involving XML is a morally good thing, in my book.

Re:Approve.

[Nikron]

How can a denial of a document be moral? In any way shape or form? I want .odf to win too, but it's not like the balance of good and evil depends on it.

Re:Approve.

[smittyoneeach]

Consider, if you will, the need for metaphysical symmetry.
Ponder the roughly decade-long pageant of XML "textnologies" that were supposed to magically unfrobnicate everything, and usher in Web X.O.
From a certain aesthetic/spiritual vantage, we need another decade of unrelenting rejection of bloated obfuscations just to bring the software industry back to a contemplative, resting state.
Or has this just been dogma lifting the leg on another bad /. karma analogy?

Re:Approve.

[Anonymous Coward]

How about when the document tries to patent mathematical formulae and then put it under "reaasonable and non-discriminatory" licenses that conflict with the GPL (yes I know they backed down to BSD compliance but how hard did we have to fight!)?

How about when they use binary formats within the XML for "backwards compatibility"?

How about when they have deliberate bugs in the standard so that "converters" don't work?

How about when they don't include ODF by standard in the possible file formats to save in?

If you want to complain, the guy directly responsible is a Micro$hill scumbag called Brian Jones who pontificates at great length on his blog about supposedly technical aspects but strangely doesn't mention the politicians they've bought and the committees they've conveniently stuffed full of cronies and shills and the honest men and women (like the IT manager in Massachussetts) who have lost their livelihoods and have suffered such great stress because of him.

Why don't we let him know what we think of his morals here?

Re:Approve.

[spitzak]

I think the parent was complaining about XML itself. In the "uses XML" criteria, both ODF and OOXML are equally hideous.

It would have been nice if ODF had avoided the XML bandwagon. I feel that a document format should have the requirement that a UTF-8 text file with newline only seperating the paragraphs and a very small set of ASCII characters (perhaps only 0-31) not occurring should be a legal document. XML fails this test.

Fighting XML is even harder than fighting the billion-dollar Microsoft FUD machine. It just isn't going to happen.

Re: Approve.

[Dolda2000]

Fighting XML is even harder than fighting the billion-dollar Microsoft FUD machine. It just isn't going to happen.

I understand your despair, but when I see threads like these, at least I understand that I'm not completely alone in my crusade against XML. I still believe that if we just continue to create domain-specific file formats and avoid other bloatfuscations in XML's likeness, it will blend out and things might work out in the end. See also here.

Re:Approve.

[Bert64]

It's good for everyone (except microsoft) for ODF to "win" as you put it...
Other companies will benefit, because it's easier/possible for them to compete.
Customers will benefit because there's competition, lower prices, higher quality, competition forces innovation etc.
OEMs will benefit because they wont be at the mercy of one supplier.

Cash is King

[mcrbids]

Guys,

We'd all love to see the proprietary and over-complex OOXML file format die on the vine. It's sickening how they've purposefully obfuscated the issue, how they've picked a name that's confusingly similar (think Florida's 2000 election all over again!) and have lied and misrepresented what it is.

But just look at that graph! The lengths that Microsoft will go to in order to prevent people from being free of the vendor lock-in... Cash is king, and Microsoft has more available cash than many countries's GNP. How far can they corrupt the process? Probably far enough, with enough time and money, and the only holdback is the time.

What we need to do is simple: continue building world-class software. Continue to push for open standards. Make quality, useful, non-locked software and eventually, the marketplace will correct itself. That we've come this far is a testament to the power of the marketplace.

Re:Cash is King

[ScrewMaster]

That we've come this far is a testament to the power of the marketplace.

It's more a testament to the power of the word "free".

Re:Cash is King

[lgw]

The thing is: a standard is just a piece of paper. There's no enforement body - that's the difference between the law and a standard. A good standard documents what the industry leaders have done, which creates strong financial motivation for others to follow that standard. Such standards are often ugly, but at least someone follows them.

The SCSI standard (INCITS T10) is an example of this. Originally it was just "what Shugart did", as Shugart Associates was the only real player, so if you wanted to make a SCSI hard drive you did it his way. Later Apple embraced and extended the SCSI standard, and had such a dominant market share that the SCSI standard became "what Apple did" for a while. By the time the SCSI 2 standard was released there were several strong players, and the standard worked because it documented the intersection between what each major player did. Today the SCSI standard is largely "what Dell will buy", though they're just the biggest player, and still have to compromise.

It's not about making a conceptually clean standard: there are dozens of standards that no one implements that are elegant and look good on paper. The ugly compromise between what the market leaders actually do is a good, useful standard. This is where the HTML standards fell apart: Microsoft and the W3C couldn't compromise. You could criticise MS for not being "standards compliant", but the interesting standard was "what Microsoft did" for many years, back when they dominated the web browser "market" (and developer cries of "but it's easier to implement this clean standard that 5% of the market uses" naturally fell flat with most managers).

Now Microsoft is at least willing to describe "what Microsoft did" in this new arena. Clean or ugly doesn't enter into it. The standard is what the market leader does. Using the ugly thing that's available off the shelf and works, and making something good from it, is called "engineeering" where I come from.

Re:Cash is King

[mrchaotica]

Now Microsoft is at least willing to describe "what Microsoft did" in this new arena.

No, it's not! Even with infinite allowance for ugliness, the sewage that Microsoft is trying to foist upon everyone isn't even sufficiently complete enough to write an independent implementation with! You can't have a standard that says "do it the way $foo did it;" you have to at least actually describe how $foo did do it. Microsoft has failed to do even that!

Re:Cash is King

[lgw]

And that presumably is why the standard was rejected. However, most people find most standards really hard to read and complain that they can't possibly be implemented, so I hesitate to take such claims at face value. English can either be unambiguous *or* easy to read, but almost never both. The only easy to read standard I've yet seen in the XML standard, as it's mostly EBNF and examples, and most of the English words are clarifying comment, not normative text.

Re:Cash is King

[mrchaotica]

However, most people find most standards really hard to read and complain that they can't possibly be implemented, so I hesitate to take such claims at face value.

I'm not complaining about it being hard to read, I'm talking about it literally saying things like "format the text the way Word 95 does it," which would require somebody wanting to implement the standard to reverse-engineer Word 95! The reason Microsoft is the only entity that can possibly implement the standard is because the standard is just (incomplete) documentation of how Office already works, hacks to provide a semblence of version compatibility and all.

Re:Cash is King

[Attila Dimedici]

"(think Florida's 2000 election all over again!) " I don't get the connection...did the FSF pick the name for OOXML?

Re:Cash is King

[_Sprocket_]

The thing is: a standard is just a piece of paper. There's no enforement body - that's the difference between the law and a standard. A good standard documents what the industry leaders have done, which creates strong financial motivation for others to follow that standard. Such standards are often ugly, but at least someone follows them. That's a great description of history. The only problem is that it's... well... history. It was true when the Industry followed product lines in a sort of monolithic product manner. But things have changed over the years. We're getting away from "this is how Vendor X does it" and moving towards "this is how Vendor X and Y will interoperate."

Standards are no longer arbitrary product descriptions. True (open) standards are commitments from vendors that purchasing their wares will lead one to an infrastructure that has a fighting chance to work with any other given components - assuming everyone is following the standard. Those who don't will quickly be outed and lose market share.

At least - that's the idea. There's still something of a transition going on. Those who profit from standards being arbitrary product descriptions are going to be resistant to this migration to true, open standards. And that seems to be what's going on here.

Re:Cash is King

[jkrise]

What we need to do is simple: continue building world-class software. Continue to push for open standards. Make quality, useful, non-locked software and eventually, the marketplace will correct itself. That we've come this far is a testament to the power of the marketplace.

I was with you until this last bit of advice for future action. Building world-class software is not the solution - think Kerberos, think Netscape, think Samba. Nor is the conitnuing push for open standards... we have just seen how standards bodies are geting polluted by cash-rich firms. The market-place is not being allowed to correct itself, by shills and so-called business partners... besides share-holders who can only think on quarterly basis, and forget the larger issues involved.

We've come this far because of the GPL, and because in a panic, Linus chose to use the GPL. And now so-called 'commercial users' (there is no commerical user of Free Softwar - only commercial exploiters like Tivo, Apple, Novell and Microsoft) are cashing in on the Free Software movement. GPL3 is a well thought out move, and IBM has now promised not to use their patents against developers.

Now that there is enough critical mass behind the open source movement, I think we need to cash in and become more vocal about abuse of standards, patents and monopolies. The blog by Rob Weir is a step in the right direction. I for one, wouldn't mind a year of dupes on Slashdot, that highlights continuous abuse by commercial firms, of the standards processes.

Re:Cash is King

[lgw]

Well, I can't say that you're wrong, but as someone with actual experience working on an international standards committee, what you're decribing is nothing new. "commitments from vendors that purchasing their wares will lead one to an infrastructure that has a fighting chance to work with any other given components " is always the intent, and rarely the practice.

When two components form different vendors work together in practice, it's almost always because some test lab somewhere discovered the interoperablilty issues before you, and had the influence to get one side or the other to change until the products worked together (and the result of that work rarely matches the written standard precisely).

Re:Cash is King

[lgw]

Sometimes I wonder whether Microsoft can implement the standard either. I suspect that the reason they say "like Word 95 does" is that they have a functional code base that works that way, and they couldn't possibly tell you the details of *how* it works (if you've worked at large enough software company this will sound familiar). This of course isn't particularly useful when writing a standard, and if MS wants acceptance they should damn well reverse engineer Word 95 themselves and publish the results.

Re:Cash is King

[dpilot]

This is completely apocryphal hearsay, so I'd really be interested to hear from someone with more concrete facts.

Supposedly there is no reference description of the ".doc" format, there is only the reference implementation source code.

On a similar note, supposedly once Microsoft spoke of crafting insanely complex and multi-variate binary standards specically in order to confound reverse-engineering. Some might consider this the exact opposite of good engineering.

Re:Cash is King

[mcrbids]

The voting cards in the 2000 Florida election were confusing so that people sometimes were unsure what (who) they were actually voting for. By picking a name that's confusingly similar people would likely lock on to a word they get "Oh, the OPEN one!" and vote for it - which is why the name "Office Open XML" to oppose the "Open Document Format".

Look at it like this:

Microsoft Office (closed proprietary) == Office Open XML

Open Office (Free, Open Source) = Open Document Format. Even the name behind OOXML implies that it has something to do with Open Office! Tell me that OOXML wouldn't easily be misinterpreted as Open Office XML. (since ODF is XML based, eh....)

Disclaimer: Yes I know that there are other implementations of the ODF standard, plugins, blah blah blah. But the most commonly referenced user of ODF is Open Office.

Re:Cash is King

[Attila Dimedici]

Yes, but those supposedly confusing voting cards in Florida were designed by...wait for it....the Democrats. So for this situation to be similar to Florida the FSF would have had to choose the name for Microsoft's OOXML. You are right that it seems likely that OOXML is intentionally designed to confuse people only vaguely familiar with what is going on. My problem is that you somehow drew a parallel to Florida 2000 where Democrat voters were confused by a ballot created by Democrat politicians.

Re:Cash is King

[mrchaotica]

Sometimes I wonder whether Microsoft can implement the standard either. I suspect that the reason they say "like Word 95 does" is that they have a functional code base that works that way, and they couldn't possibly tell you the details of *how* it works (if you've worked at large enough software company this will sound familiar).

Not only is this exactly what I believe is happening, it's exactly what I've been trying to tell you for the last two posts!

Re:Cash is King

[MightyMartian]

And that presumably is why the standard was rejected. However, most people find most standards really hard to read and complain that they can't possibly be implemented, so I hesitate to take such claims at face value. English can either be unambiguous *or* easy to read, but almost never both. The only easy to read standard I've yet seen in the XML standard, as it's mostly EBNF and examples, and most of the English words are clarifying comment, not normative text.

Most people don't read standards. The fact is that programmers for decades have been able to utilize standards, even those that are complex to read and comprehend. I remember the first time I delved into an RFC so that I could write an SMTP proxy to allow our ancient mail server to stop being an open relay, now that was fun. But even a moderately skilled programmer like myself who had never done socket programming of any kind prior to this SMTP proxy could, with patience, get enough out of the documentation to make a compliant server.

Microsoft has some of the most talented and well-paid coders in the business. If some dumb hacker that got pushed into a project so that his employers' network didn't end up on blacklists can comprehend a documented standard, then I'm sure Microsoft can.

OOXML is a scam. It's meant to give Microsoft some air of respectability in an arena that it is, to say the least, deeply distrusted. The documentation is intentionally incomplete, and that's because Microsoft doesn't want anyone to implement it. This is simply part of their war on up-and-coming competitors. The whole thing is a lie, and it appears that a strong enough minority of the committee recognize this stunt for what it is. What is sad is that money may very well win the day, when Microsoft should be shown the door and told not to come back until it has a standard that any competent programmer could build an interface in an application for, even if they possess no libraries to help them along.

Re:Cash is King

[Frizzle Fry]

saying things like "format the text the way Word 95 does it," which would require somebody wanting to implement the standard to reverse-engineer Word 95! Bullshit. The standard has things like that Word 95 tag but it explicitly states that they are optional and you are not required to support them to be compliant.

Re:Cash is King

[Chandon Seldon]

And now so-called 'commercial users' (there is no commerical user of Free Softwar - only commercial exploiters like Tivo, Apple, Novell and Microsoft) are cashing in on the Free Software movement.

Wait... what?

I suggest the following: If you carefully stop talking, you can avoid saying anything stupid like that in the future. If there are no commercial users of free software, then why does MySQL exist, and who uses it?

Re:Cash is King

[jkrise]

If there are no commercial users of free software, then why does MySQL exist, and who uses it? MySQL AB is not a commercial 'user' of Free Software - they are one of several commercial 'distributors' of Free Software. Those who use MySQL for their own projects are non-commercial users, those who bundle MySQL along with their 'software products and services' are again commercial distributors of Free Software like MySQL.

Companies like RedHat and Canonical are commercial 'Service Providers' and 'Value Added Distributors' for Free Software - they are not users.

I think Google and other SAAS companies might be described as "Commercial Users" - if and when they have a considerable impact on the desktop, a future version of the GPL might consider addressing them.... maybe GPL6.

I suggest the following: If you carefully stop talking, you can avoid saying anything stupid like that in the future. If you are careful enough while posting, you can avoid abusing others, and focus on the point you're debating instead.

Re:Cash is King

[oohshiny]

Actually, given that MySQL is dual-licensed, it's questionable whether it even is free software.

Re:Cash is King

[Chandon Seldon]

Those who use MySQL for their own projects are non-commercial users

Here's where the disagreement is. That's an interesting claim, what's your argument to support it?

If you are careful enough while posting, you can avoid abusing others, and focus on the point you're debating instead.

Fortunately, not abusing others isn't one of my personal goals.

Re:Cash is King

[Chandon Seldon]

Actually, given that MySQL is dual-licensed, it's questionable whether it even is free software.

Even Richard Stallman wouldn't look at it that way. MySQL is available under the terms of the GPL, so it's free software. Like the LGPL, the total license that MySQL AB offers compromises the viral nature of the GPL for another goal (profit isn't innately an ethically positive goal, but it's still a goal).

Compare the effects to releasing the program under the MIT license or some other non-copyleft free software license. The only real difference is that MySQL AB gets to charge a bunch of money to the developers of proprietary products that use the software.

Re:Cash is King

[jkrise]

Those who use MySQL for their own projects are non-commercial users Here's where the disagreement is. That's an interesting claim, what's your argument to support it? Please state your argument that opposes my claim, and I'll see if I can defend my stance.

Re:Cash is King

[Chandon Seldon]

Please state your argument that opposes my claim, and I'll see if I can defend my stance.

If people are using MySQL in any sort of product or website that they intend to use for revenue generation, that makes them a commercial user. Heck, any use by a for-profit corporation should count as commercial use, and thus that corporation is a commercial user.

Re:Cash is King

[jkrise]

If people are using MySQL in any sort of product or website that they intend to use for revenue generation, that makes them a commercial user. Heck, any use by a for-profit corporation should count as commercial use, and thus that corporation is a commercial user. I don't think even Microsoft uses this definition of a 'commercial user'. You are either an End User or a Value Added Reseller or Distributor; hence their EULA or End User License Agreements as opposed to the GPL. The EULA applies whether you use Microsoft software to make money OR play gmaes.

Atleast as far as Free Software is concerned, the GPL (and other Free licenses) do not concern themselves with the nature of end-use - whether they be commercial or not; infact the license kicks in only when there is distrbution involved, in which case it automatically implies the distributor is not an End User.

Re:Cash is King

[RockDoctor]

However, most people find most standards really hard to read

Most people find anything hard to read. Seriously. Although most western countries claim literacy rates over 90%, in reality more like a quarter of people are functionally illiterate. (http://nces.ed.gov/NAAL/PDF/2006470.PDF) (Functional illiteracy is reading so poorly that it seriously diminishes one's earning ability.

Re:Cash is King

[jimicus]

Wonderful.

So in essence, you can have varying levels of compliance and only Microsoft will ever be able to produce a piece of software which is 100%, no questions asked compliant with every last nuance of the specification, even the optional parts.

That's not a standard. That's an obvious attempt to maintain dominance in a market by making sure the standard suits your business and not anybody else's.

Re:Cash is King

[mpe]

So in essence, you can have varying levels of compliance and only Microsoft will ever be able to produce a piece of software which is 100%, no questions asked compliant with every last nuance of the specification, even the optional parts.

In practice it appears that even Microsoft have trouble actually doing this :)

Re:Cash is King

[ichigo 2.0]

In the old days, those two were the same thing.

Re:Cash is King

[Don_dumb]

That could well be the case (we really need someone to confirm), as the document has been "like the earlier version but with this feature" for some time.

I have just finished working on a project that created a replacement system from our 40+ year old one. Despite the rules and regulations being written down the whole life of the project, we found that several things in our system were only really documented in the source code and I don't mean 'commented', I mean the only way you knew what something should do was by working out what it did do and hoping that meant the same thing. With iterative software development, I imagine that no matter how much you document the system, the point of some parts will just 'get lost in the mist'.
Of course I agree that if they want a standard, then they should spend the effort looking at the source code and working out what everything should do.

Re:Cash is King

[Guuge]

Yes, but those supposedly confusing voting cards in Florida were designed by...wait for it....the Democrats.

It was not designed by the Democrats. That's your confusion right there. It was designed by one politician, who switched her party based on which gave her the best chance of being elected. If you insist on drawing the parallel out that far, it would make most sense if the name of OOXML was originally submitted by a former Microsoft employee, and approved by Microsoft's board. I have no knowledge of the creation of the name, but the parallel holds anyway. No matter how it originated, it serves to confuse people and skew results.

Re:Cash is King

[Attila Dimedici]

The important difference being that there is good reason to suspect that MS chose to name OOXML in a manner that would be confusing. There is little reason to think that a Democrat office holder(in an overwhelmingly Democratic county) intentionally designed a confusing ballot. Making the connection is a completely unwarranted insertion of partisan politics into what is otherwise a discussion in which one's political party affiliation is irrelevant.

Re:Cash is King

[Anonymous Coward]

> And now so-called 'commercial users' (there is no commerical user of Free Softwar - only commercial exploiters like Tivo, Apple, Novell and Microsoft) are cashing in on the Free Software movement.

Why do people keep insisting that Apple is an exploiter of Free Software? As far as I know they have voluntary contributed code that they weren't required to contribute.

Re:Cash is King

[pwainwright]

You gotta love that graph.

It looks like the membership of the International Whaling Commission. Whenever a vote comes up on the resumption of commercial whaling, suddenly a load of tiny countries with no interest in whaling nevertheless join up and vote in favour. No connection with the generous aid package which Japan has just given them, of course...

Re:Cash is King

[oohshiny]

The only real difference is that MySQL AB gets to charge a bunch of money to the developers of proprietary products that use the software.

No, that's not the "only" real difference. In fact, dual-licensed software is generally not developed by users and for users, it's developed by a company with commercial interests that drive what goes in and what doesn't. And contributors have to sign over their contributions to the company.

I don't know what the FSF position on it is, but I think dual licensing is a bad idea. I think the FSF would be well advised to refuse to let people use the GPL name for dual licensing purposes.

how many more partrners needed?

[derrida]

7?
22/33=2/3.

Re:how many more partrners needed?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it would be 10. You forgot that any member voting "Yes" allso needs to be added to the total people voting.

The number of "No" voters is 12. For a 2/3 majority of the "Yes" voters that number would need to be 1/3 of the total number of voters. The "Yes" voters would need to be 2/3, which is double that of the "No" voters.

So, the "No" voters would need to have 24 members (making a grand total of 36 voters), which is 10 more than they have now.

This is, funnily enough, about 2/3 more than they currently have.

maybe its just me

[SolusSD]

but It seems that the OOXML format is intentionally large/bloated and hard to implement. I get the feeling that MS wants people to implement the "standard" to the best of their ability while changing things ever so slightly in the MS office implementation-- like what they did with the Microsoft Java VM. This way the majority of people (most of which already use MS office) will be hesitant to ever switch to a competing product.

Re:maybe its just me

[mrchaotica]

Maybe it's just me, but It seems that the OOXML format is intentionally large/bloated and hard to implement.

Intentional? No. It's merely the result of some poor sod documenting the Office formats, which are essentially dumps of the programs' internal state. What you see is merely the consequence of the fact that Office is held together with spit, bailing wire, and the curséd blood of sacrificed Microsoft H1-b programmers.

Standards organizations are politics...

[Ungrounded Lightning]

... which is war by another name.

They're supposed to be setting up mechanisms for cooperation. But all too often they become political battlegrounds, where each member organization tries to warp the standard to make things easier for itself and to sabotage its competition.

Now we have Microsoft going a step further, not just trying to get its own stuff approved as a standard, but packing the committee just before the vote.

And missing by one vote. Oops! B-)

Re:Standards organizations are politics...

[Citizen of Earth]

I can't understand why Microsoft didn't bring in a hundred new companies. Then they could boast a 107-6 result.

Re:Standards organizations are politics...

[MightyMartian]

I can't understand why Microsoft didn't bring in a hundred new companies. Then they could boast a 107-6 result.

There are only so many hookers on the street at any given time. Wait until the next batch of shameless trollops come along to stick their venal posteriors in the air to receive the sordid blessings of the Redmond crowd. I think a proper and fitting way for Europe to punish Microsoft, and for the next generation of DoJ prosecutors to do it is forbid Microsoft from ever sitting on any standards committee, ever breaking a standard or directly or indirectly (through so-called partners) contributing to a standard. That is where their power over the market place has been for nearly twenty years, and that's where they should be stopped.

Re:Standards organizations are politics...

[RobBebop]

They're supposed to be setting up mechanisms for cooperation. But all too often they become political battlegrounds, where each member organization tries to warp the standard to make things easier for itself and to sabotage its competition.

But when the member organizations are "Microsoft" and "The Public" it is easy to see which is trying to warp the standard in a greedy way and which is trying to create a genuinely beneficial standard that all can follow.

Never lose sight of what the "P" in GPL stands for... because that is the power which Openness and Community bring to make the world a better place for its own interests (that is, the Public interest) and a worse place for anybody who would compete with it (Private interests - whether they be in Redmond or anywhere else in the world).

where is the list of ooxml supporters

[goarilla]

title says it all

i'm fucking pissed as to i clicked the link of possible ooxml supporters microsoft got to cooperate
the only thing i can see on the sea is a stupid graph which only shows ooxml beeing relatively more pushed than
before, but still where is the list of ooxml supporters, this summary is extremely misleading

Re:where is the list of ooxml supporters

[klingens]

I can't give you a "who voted how" but I can tell you who can vote:
http://v1.incits.org/v1mem.htm

Apart from a few biggies like IBM or Sun, most of them you never ever heard of.
The interesting part what is RH doing there except what MS does, but within the opposite camp? E.g. being there purely to thwart MS' doings.

Re:where is the list of ooxml supporters

[hey]

What's with IBM?
I wonder what they are thinking.

Re:where is the list of ooxml supporters

[PMBjornerud]

Can you also give us a 'who joined when'?

With 14 of the 16 latest joiners voting yes, and one of being RedHat, I'll estimate the votes of the remaining 15.

Re:where is the list of ooxml supporters

[WebMink]

You're mistaking "committee members" with "supporters" I think. Neither IBM nor Sun was present to mindlessly support OOXML...

Hack Back

[bill_mcgonigle]

It's especially interesting how Microsoft is trying to hack the standards process. If you read this linked comment you'll see the list of new members, their relationships to Microsoft, and a long and interesting essay by Marbux about why this shouldn't be happening.

But it is.

The good news is that it appears money can fix this - short money for most (the cost of a couple copies of Microsoft Office). If you have any discretionary budgetary authority and would be adversely affected by OOXML being an ANSI standard, please go here, read about the membership process (it appears to cost $800 to be on the technical committees) and fill out the membership form. If you're an academic institution you can get on the technical committees and have an advisory role for $2000.

Yes, the process is broken, but it appears this can be stopped pretty quickly. They're hacking, all we can do is hack back.

It would be great if a hundred universities and a couple hundred Slashdotters' businesses were able to get on the committee by the end of the week. It would reverse the trend, by quite a margin. By all means, try to get the process fixed in parallel, but any such efforts there will likely come in too late.

Re:Hack Back

[VorpalEdge]

Yeah, that's definitely the best way to do things - giving Microsoft another box of ammo in the proverbial war. "Oh no, all these zealots joined the organization JUST TO HURT US. We're VICTIMS! It's unfounded! Don't support these lunatics!"

There are also some other issues to consider. What other responsibilities does this organization have? How will they be fulfilled them when the only reason people joined was to stick it to The Man? Or is everybody just going to quit cold turkey and give Microsoft reason to call for a recount/vote/whatever?

Re:Hack Back

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, M$ already won by 15 probably bribed votes against 10.

You suggest that we hack back, but that is not etical.

Re:Hack Back

[bill_mcgonigle]

"Oh no, all these zealots joined the organization JUST TO HURT US. We're VICTIMS! It's unfounded! Don't support these lunatics!"

Um, that's exactly their tactic.

"Son, never start a fight, but always finish one."

Re:Hack Back

[bill_mcgonigle]

Hey, M$ already won by 15 probably bribed votes against 10.

They would need 20 to get a 2/3 majority vote.

You suggest that we hack back, but that is not etical.

When somebody's clubbing you on the head, first you stop the clobbering, then you worry about what to do with them. One can prefer a happy community spirit while still not subscribing to radical pacifism.

Re:Hack Back

[VorpalEdge]

Yeah, it is their tactic. And if we adopt it, they will be the ones to finish the fight.

Re:Hack Back

[kandresen]

Your hack back comment may work as a temporary bandage, however I do prefer Marbux's position and given that he is a retired lawyer with the interest of actually doing something, I think backing him would be a better choice. I like his list: - there is no legal authorization for INCITS to be formulating the position of the U.S. government - there is no statute where Congress even granted NIST the authority to proclaim the U.S. position on internatonal standards - legally, the decision must be made by a federal agency head or cabinet level official, after giving official notice and soliciting public comment - Charging $800 to have a voice in formulating an official U.S. government position on a matter that imposes legal obligations on all all levels of the U.S. government is anti-democratic and outrageous - Allowing people with vested financial interests to cast ballots on federal government decisions also violates federal conflict of interest laws - Asking elected federal representatives and senators to explain how NIST acquired the legal authority to represent the U.S. government at ISO and how it legally acquired the right to delegate such authority to an industry consortium (both clearly set out in the memorandum of understanding) asks the right questions AND will result in massive pressure on NIST to intervene. That is because the Congress critters will forward those letters/emails to NIST for response and NIST folk know who writes the checks for their salaries and programs. - Letters to Congress Critters complaining about NIST's improper delegation of governmental functions to an industry consortium would likely be far more effective than buying into the practice of responding to the illegal stuffing of the ballot box by a countering effort to outdo the other side in the illegal stuffing.

Re:Hack Back

[bill_mcgonigle]

Your hack back comment may work as a temporary bandage, however I do prefer Marbux's position and given that he is a retired lawyer with the interest of actually doing something, I think backing him would be a better choice.

If you only follow Marbux's position, the US will vote for OOXML to become an ANSI standard. That's why I advocated doing both in parallel. I guess if you had to chose among the two, Marbux's has the better long-term benefit, but we don't have to chose.

Re:Hack Back

[bill_mcgonigle]

Yeah, it is their tactic. And if we adopt it, they will be the ones to finish the fight.

Ummm, if we don't adopt it, they win. US votes for OOXML to be an ANSI standard. Fight over.

Re:Hack Back

[rvqbl]

I really do appreciate your efforts and desire to do this the democratic way. If I had mod points, I would mod you up, but I think that $800 go a lot farther than a letter to congress. I hate to say it, I really do.

You are applying for accreditation? Allow or Deny

[Anonymous Coward]

DENY

ISO credibility is at stake

[Anonymous Coward]

If Microsoft is able to buy ISO's approval of this farce, it would destroy ISO's credibility. Does ISO want to commit suicide?

And yet, Microsoft might be cutting its own throat. If ISO loses
its integrity, there won't be any more standards, and Microsoft won't be able to claim it has a standard.

Re:ISO credibility is at stake

[jimicus]

Standards organisations aren't afraid of a standard which appears otherwise silly.

I suggest you look up ISO 3103:1980 (also known as BS 6008:1980).

Re:ISO credibility is at stake

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Then it will continue to hold its present title the de facto standard! And it likes this title to a real standard because, it can continue to vendor lock all its users, it does not have to publish the internals.

OK..

[Revenge_of_Solver_Ta]

whether or not ANSI will grant fast-track approval

Can someone clear this up?

Does this just mean they aren't going let it through right now but will eventually?

I'm a little confused about what this standard will be used for too..Thank you in advance.

Microsoft's OfficeOpen XML in Massachusetts

[WillRobinson]

Lifted from www.groklaw.net, but relevant!

Massachusetts would like to recieve comments about Microsoft's OfficeOpen XML specification (now Ecma 376) being proposed as an addition to their list of usable "open standards". I'm hearing that they are reading the emails and will take them seriously.

It's a proposal, and it's not yet carved in stone. Time will tell if they mean it, but with that reassurance, I have to put my cynicism on hold, at least for now, and say that if this is an issue you care about, you need to let them know how you feel in polite and informative emails before July 20th, 2007. It never hurts to try, particularly since I've no doubt Microsoft is lobbying wherever it can. When I thought it was useless, I didn't want to pretend otherwise or have you engage in make work. But if it has a chance, it's very different.

Here's the address to write to: standards at state.ma.us. (Only use the @ symbol instead of the at.)

I suspect the most important thing right now is numbers, so even a short email is helpful. They can't know how you feel unless you tell them, and they can't understand the tech unless it's presented with proofs of statements made. And remember, it's a new crew, so some of the things we explained the first time may not have been transferred to the new brains at the helm. So please let me provide you with some resources, so that if you wish some materials at hand to compose a more thoughtful and more technical email, it will save you some time.

Re:Microsoft's OfficeOpen XML in Massachusetts

[bucky0]

can I write if I don't live in MA?

Re:Microsoft's OfficeOpen XML in Massachusetts

[WillRobinson]

Yes you can, visit this article at Groklaw and look at a sample from the ones that were posted. The idea is to let them know they are setting standards that may be viewed from around the world, and that they are being watched as an example. While initially there were only 50 letters submitted, we all know what the power of slashdot users can do.

Re:Microsoft's OfficeOpen XML in Massachusetts

[RobBebop]

Thank you for the information about MA... here is what I quote them:

To the Government of Massachusetts,

I reviewed the major changes to the Enterprise Technical Reference Model (ETRM) v4.0, and I would like to offer my comments to an addition that was made to the Information Domain.

I feel that it would be a mistake to add ECMA-376 as a standard on the basis that the standard, as approved by ECMA International, can only be completely implemented by a single organization. The Guidelines section of the Open XML File Format on your page points out that Microsoft, Novell, and Corel will all support the standard, but this hides the fact that there are certain sections of the OOXML specification which cannot be implemented because of (a) software patents held by Microsoft Corporation, and (b) binary embedding within the format by the Microsoft Corporation. The proprietary nature inherent in OOXML does not make for a good standard, because in the end there will be a reliance on Microsoft Corporation and not Novell or Corel to fix data corruption problems since they are the only ones in control of the full body of ECMA-376.

It is worth noting that there is no value added by having OOXML in addition to ODF. These are competing standards which cover the same areas of the Information Domain (that is: Documents, Spreadsheets, Presentations). It seems silly to have two standards for doing the same type of things. This is a recipe for chaos. Please standardize on a single standard for documents, spreadsheets, and presentations.

It is also worth mentioning the track record of the major products that supported the Legacy versions of these information standards. OpenOffice, the most popular suite of office software which supports ODF, has supported (to the best of its capability) the ability to Open, Read, and Modify *.doc, *.xls, and *.ppt since version 1.0. Meanwhile, without a special patch (http://sourceforge.net/projects/odf-converter), it is impossible to Open, Read, and Modify *.odt, *.ods, and *.odp files in Microsoft Office.

The major reason to have standards is to prevent Vendor Lock-in, and it is evident that ECMA-376 is intended to push the Microsoft Office suite of products, so the Microsoft can position itself to sell and resell licenses to the state every couple of years. Please do not opt to take a path down a road that will lead to costly software purchases when there are many residents of Massachusetts who are active contributors to projects that enhance and improve products that support the ODF format everyday. Instead, use the software that is partially developed for you by your taxpayers, instead of using your taxpayers money to buy software that is developed by monopolizing corporations under the false pretensions of open standards.

Thank you for your time.
/signed name/

Re:Microsoft's OfficeOpen XML in Massachusetts

[WillRobinson]

Just wanted to say, thats a very impressive letter. With real meat! You never know, yours might be the one take to heart, not that politicians have any.

Misunderstandings of the standards process

[Anonymous Coward]

First, one of the commenters on the linked page doesn't seem to understand the voluntary, consensus international standards process. Participation is not a government function. It is a voluntary function. ANSI is the US representative to ISO. US government agencies can be members of ANSI committees, just like anyone else. To be sure, in some countries the equivalent of ANSI is a government agency there.

Second, in SDO's it accredits, ANSI requires balance among participants to ensure that all kinds of stakeholder viewpoints are included and no stakeholder class is dominant. It looks like ANSI let this one get away. They should also have rules against packing committees.

Why the push?

[jshriverWVU]

I thought one of the reasons MS was dominating the Office realm was because of legacy .doc formats. Even in college I dished out for a student copy of Word just because some classes required it (OO wasn't out yet).

If MS wants to keep that going having a completely open spec format kinda limits their "keep buying Word, or you wont be compatible" argument. There has to be another reason but it eludes me.

Re:Why the push?

[KillerCow]

Because some governments (and other institutions) are tired of the lock-in are passing rules that say that they will only buy products that have open formats.

This is Microsoft's way of having their product officially stamped as being "open."

Re:Why the push?

[january05]

"If MS wants to keep that going having a completely open spec format kinda limits their "keep buying Word, or you wont be compatible" argument. There has to be another reason but it eludes me."

Perhaps you haven't heard, but OOXML is not anywhere near an open standard. Google: autoSpaceLikeWord95 (...how exactly do you autoSpaceLikeWord95? Decompile Word 95 on Windows 95? Where do you get these programs?), VML (is that even implementable outside of Windows and Internet Explorer? oops!), WMF (ditto), and "referenced" patents. MS is even employing Linux companies to write "translators" that can never fully implement OOXML because of these intentional problems. Just read the Halloween documents where MS says they need to innovate above standards (embrace + extend) or some Comes v MS documents. Google "Microsoft on standards". http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/01/microsoft-on-s tandards.html

I'll have to say, so many people are falling for the Open Office, er, I mean Office Open XML "standard" that MS's PR firm must have been paid very well.

From the OOXML patent promise:

"Microsoft irrevocably promises not to assert any Microsoft Necessary Claims against you for making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing or distributing any implementation to the extent it conforms to a Covered Specification (Covered Implementation), subject to the following. This is a personal promise directly from Microsoft to you, and you acknowledge as a condition of benefiting from it that no Microsoft rights are received from suppliers, distributors, or otherwise in connection with this promise. If you file, maintain or voluntarily participate in a patent infringement lawsuit against a Microsoft implementation of such Covered Specification, then this personal promise does not apply with respect to any Covered Implementation of the same Covered Specification made or used by you. To clarify, Microsoft Necessary Claims are those claims of Microsoft-owned or Microsoft-controlled patents that are necessary to implement only the required portions of the Covered Specification that are described in detail and not merely referenced in such Specification. Covered Specifications are listed below.

This promise is not an assurance either (i) that any of Microsofts issued patent claims covers a Covered Implementation or are enforceable or (ii) that a Covered Implementation would not infringe patents or other intellectual property rights of any third party. No other rights except those expressly stated in this promise shall be deemed granted, waived or received by implication, exhaustion, estoppel, or otherwise."

Oh, you mean VML is only referenced and therefore not covered by the patent promise, at the same time MS is throwing their patents around Linux? Too bad it's inherently part of the OOXML spec....

INCITS has a vote in ANSI

[Anonymous Coward]

INCITS is the US organization with a vote in ANSI. Right now, they're deadlocked on what to recommend to ANSI because Microsoft didn't get enough partners to join up.

ANSI will eventually vote on whether to fast-track OOXML as an ANSI standard. It's on the fast-track because ECMA has already accepted it (i.e. it was force-fed through by Microsoft, but that's not very hard to do with the ECMA).

So what's at stake here is one vote in ANSI. And I gather that ANSI will eventually vote for or against it as an ISO standard. Or something like that. But there are so many votes, and even more push from Microsoft, that I barely have any clue where things stand now.

It's a shame really...

[xednieht]

Just think of the great and functional technologies MS could develop if they would invest the time and resources into their product instead of ganking the system.

Ballmer seems desperately desperate, I think he might depart MS by November 08.

Re:It's a shame really...

[Kazoo the Clown]

Just think of the great and functional technologies MS could develop if they would invest the time and resources into their product instead of ganking the system.

Yes, but to do that would require some actual confidence in one's own abilities to succeed on a level playing field.

OOXML...

[QuietLagoon]

... the best standard that monopoly money can buy.

The questions remains - just how good are the purchased goods?

Cool to see msft lose, even with a stacked deck

[walterbyrd]

Of course, it isn't over yet. I get the feeling that msft will win. Hard to lose with all that money, and influence.

What can I do?

[Qubit]

I give money to various FOSS projects that I use at home and work, and I have my FSF card and my EFF decoder ring, and I feel pretty good about all that, but what can I do to help promote the use and standardization of ODF over OOXML?

We all have our prejudices, and a lot of us geeks are (not unduly) suspicious of anything "open" coming out of Redmond, but to step back and compare these two formats I see ODF as a clear winner:

• OOXML is controlled by one company, not a standards body.
  
• Microsoft likes proprietary formats and has only gone the open format route because the market/industry forced them to do so.
  
• Microsoft was invited several times to join the ODF standards committee and refused all invitations.
  
• The OOXML format is not actually open for anyone to implement: part of the specification references proprietary file formats (older ms-office formats) and proprietary, microsoft-only code.
  

So what can I do to promote ODF? Write to my congresscritters? Spend some time proofing drafts of the spec?

red hat cares about standards, that's what

[Anonymous Coward]

Red Hat punches far above its weight on US/Europe national and international standards bodies. Of course they are on this committee, and are voting members: they are the real deal, not just talking the talk. It's hard work that is very rarely noted, but Red Hat is active on a ton of standards bodies, and monitors even more. I dare any RH customer or potential customer to ask Red Hat for the list of standards bodies involvement/membership: do it, they have it and will give it out when asked, and you'll be impressed.

It's easy to be all "open source" and lip off about shit, but Red Hat is still OLD SKOOL and cares about "free software" and real standards, not pussy ECMA bullshit.

Woops Wrong Link

[WillRobinson]

The correct link is here

Linus is right

[Anonymous Coward]

I am with Linus on this one.

Standards and Law.

[twitter]

There's no enforement body - that's the difference between the law and a standard.

No. Standards are supposed to reflect and guide best practice. Laws codify people's morals.

Both should be ethically produced and neither is supposed to be sold. M$ has it's ugly hands corrupting both for their purposes at everyone else's expense.

No, it's M$.

[twitter]

It's merely the result of some poor sod documenting the Office formats, which are essentially dumps of the programs' internal state. What you see is merely the consequence of the fact that Office is held together with spit, bailing wire, and the curséd blood of sacrificed Microsoft H1-b programmers.

No, it's ugly because M$ has been playing this game forever. Office 2007 does not export to systems before Office 2007 is because it can't and it won't export well to any other system but it's own. M$ is going to play this game as long as people fall for it. Corrupting standards bodies is part of making people believe that this time they've changed. If they wanted to do something good for their customers they would be using ODF, which is a complete, reasonable and free standard.

Re:No, it's M$.

[mrchaotica]

Hey, nobody ever said you couldn't attribute malice and stupidity!

Also, by the way: you're ranting at the choir. Cut it out.

Re:No, it's M$.

[Kalriath]

I'm not sure what to answer to this. Half of it is all too true, the other half is complete bullshit. Office 2007 can and does export to earlier formats (Office 2003 and below, I think it still does WordPerfect, and even - with the right converters installed - OpenDocument Format!).

Then, corrupting standards bodies ... yeah, can't disagree with that. Of course there's more than one company that plays at that game.

If they wanted to do something good for the customers, they wouldn't just be using OpenDocument, they'd join the group developing it.

Re:No, it's M$.

[dedazo]

Wow, and to think I've been exchanging MSO2007 documents for six months with Office 2003 users. With no problems at all. It's like I live in this parallel dimension where everything you claim doesn't work actually does. I feel a Rod Serling moment coming...

There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call the Twitter Zone.

Re:No, it's M$.

[man_of_mr_e]

If they wanted to do something good for their customers they would be using ODF, which is a complete, reasonable and free standard.

I'm sorry, are we talking about the same ODF here? Even OASIS doesn't agree with you, as they've already set up 2 working groups to address the incompleteness of it, namely accessibility and formulas. The one piece they still haven't addressed is legacy documents from Microsoft, Word Perfect, Lotus, and others, which is a HUGE problem for anyone that will want to convert their archive of documents to an open standard.

Other than the Accessibility and formula issues, I agree that ODF is a great office file format for new documents, but it's a royal pain in the ass if it's your job to keep legecay documents identical while converting to the new format.

Re:No, it's M$.

[man_of_mr_e]

If they wanted to do something good for the customers, they wouldn't just be using OpenDocument, they'd join the group developing it.

You know as well as I do that the offer by Oasis for Microsoft to participate is disingenuous. The group is dominated by Microsoft's competitors who would do everything in their power (as evidenced by the blog articles they write on a daily basis, and legal maneuvering they keep coming up with) to sideline and make their participation in the group moot.

I believe that Microsoft would have participated in ODF if they believed their requirements for a file format would be met (ie. one that would support legacy documents and allow 100% document fidelity). I am certain they believed that participating in the Oasis group would have been a pointless exercise in futility, and they would end up with the same useless (to them, because it won't represent legacy documents) spec they have now.

You'll want to spin this as a power struggle, and claim that Microsoft wouldn't participate because they would not have been abke to control things. To that, i counter that Microsoft has participated in many standards, such as C, C++, XML itself, etc.. all without control over the working group. But the difference here is that the ODF committee was, by nature of it's makeup consisting almost entirely of their competitors, deliberately hostile to Microsoft.

It's no surprise they decided not to participate, and develop their own XML format. ODF was never intended to support Office, and was likely positioned to make it difficult for Microsoft to do so.

You really have to look at this from the political aspect, as well as the technical one. Read between the lines.

I'm not saying that OOXML is a great format. In fact, I think it sucks. But it does something ODF doesn't, and was deliberately prevented from doing, and something that is vitally important to the success of an open format, and that's legacy documents support.

Re:No, it's M$.

[LingNoi]

It's no surprise they decided not to participate, and develop their own XML format. ODF was never intended to support Office, and was likely positioned to make it difficult for Microsoft to do so.

What bullshit! Microsoft where asked to join in with the ODF Specs and they REFUSED!

Re:No, it's M$.

[man_of_mr_e]

What bullshit! Microsoft where asked to join in with the ODF Specs and they REFUSED!

Maybe you should read the whole comment before saying something so stupid. I specifically addressed that, and you seem to have ignored it.

They refused because it wasn't a genuine invitation. It's like when you invite the next door neighbor to your party so they can't complain about the noise, but you desperately hope they say no, and make plans to make them uncomfortable and sideline them if they actually do show up.

They invited them because they knew Microsoft would refuse, given the makeup of the working group, and who was in control of it. I mean, come on.. even the name of the group was biased. It was called the "Open Office XML Format Technical Committee" IBM, Sun, and Adobe employees make up almost half the membership of the committee.

Please don't play dumb. Regardless of where you stand on the OOXML issue, you have to know that Sun and IBM used OASIS as a tool in their fight against their #1 competitor. This is clearly obvious by simply reading the tone, and content of their blog entries. They see it as war, and are constantly fighting the adoption of OOXML despite the fact that Microsoft has never once done ANYTHING to stand in the way of the adoption of ODF, other than when OOXML was being excluded from consideration. Microsoft even voted for ODF standard acceptance. Playing dumb about this is just as disingenuous as IBM and Sun's attempts. Just admit it, and don't act all hurt that Microsoft saw through the charade.

You know as well as I do that Sun and IBM would not have allowed Microsoft to influence ODF in any meaningful way, so what purpose would there have been for them to participate?

Re:No, it's M$.

[Carewolf]

Legacy documents should be saved in PDF period.

Word processing formats are not for archiving or publishing, they are for editing, and should only be used during editing.

Re:No, it's M$.

[Bert64]

Microsoft were invited to join the ODF process, and refused. This is because they wanted to maintain the status quo as long as possible...

Other standards they participated in were already established, and thus they had no choice. With ODF they preferred to ignore it and hope it would go away, had they supported it then the migration to ODF format would be in full swing right now, and the biggest reason people keep using msoffice would have been eliminated.

As for supporting legacy documents, that is not the business of the file format, that is the business of the conversion program. It's utterly ridiculous to use such vague tags as "format like word 95" in a modern format, and this does nothing to improve support.

Did word 95 and similarly old kludgy apps do something so ridiculous with it's formatting that it cannot be described in current formats? Why can't the conversion process simply convert the word95 formatting into an equivalent representation?

And if it did do something so stupid, why not have a tag that describes the actual behaviour, instead of something vaguely referencing an external program? Someone may have a need/desire to implement the same behaviour in new documents. Conversely, if this behaviour is nothing special that can't be described using the existing formatting functions of the format, why does it needs its own tag?

Re:No, it's M$.

[man_of_mr_e]

Wrong. ODF and OOXML are not strictly word processing formats. They're *ARCHIVAL* formats as well. One reason for the choice of XML was so that third party applications can easily use them, such as document management systems. PDF just makes it more difficult for those apps to do their job. In a way, you're right though... and that's why Microsoft has developed XPS.. XML Paper Specification, to make it easier for DMS's and archives to work with such documents.

However, that doesn't change the fact that there are literally billions of legacy documents, and they need to be in a format that is both machine and *HUMAN* readable, PDF is not that.

Re:No, it's M$.

[Bert64]

So your saying that these legacy apps do such ridiculous things that it's simply not possible to describe their behaviour using the standard formatting options available on ODF/OOXML?

Or do they just do simple things, like slightly reduce font sizes, or adjust line spacing etc... Things like this are trivially easy to handle during conversion to a new format, simply change the appropriate option in the new file as you convert and the output will look the same as the input, although the programs will show different font sizes etc, they will actually look the same because the older program is buggy.

And converting back is just the same, if you know what format your converting to you can do the size conversions in reverse.

Re:No, it's M$.

[Carewolf]

PDF is not that.

It is. It's perfect for all of that. It's just that Adobe would rather have that you have to pay them for the advanced features, but it still works fine in Linux. You can read all text in it, index it, etc, etc.

Re:No, it's M$.

[mpe]

Legacy documents should be saved in PDF period.

Or if PDF isn't what's needed maybe someone needs to design Archive Document Format.

Why is MS taking all this trouble?

[tsa]

From the abstract: it's pretty clear that Microsoft is pushing OOXML as hard as it can.

If MS really believed in their products they wouldn't need to push OOXML so hard. It's obvious from their behaviour that they're scared to death about ODF. I wonder how many people would switch to Open Office if ODF really takes off. I think you will find that the number of switchers will not be as big as MS is afraid of. People are too used to MS's stuff and usually reluctant to change.

Re:Why is MS taking all this trouble?

[spitzak]

It should be pretty obvious. Microsoft is afraid of losing lock-in.

Yes it is quite certain that if ODF was required, Microsoft word would read/write ODF. And Microsoft word would almost certainly still be the number 1 word processor, and just like .doc format today it is likely that 95% of the ODF documents would never be read or written by anything other than Microsoft word. And Microsoft would (initially) make exactly the same amount of money as they do now. They may even make a big windfall, if the ODF read/write is only a feature of the new version that people need to buy.

The difference is that a number-2 word processor could then at least exist.

Microsoft is not worried about Open Office, that is just another bit of FUD they throw out (they act like there is some physical impossibility of any program other than an open-source Open Office working with ODF, which is a blatently false, but unstated, premise, of all their arguments).

What they are worried about is a *commercial* number-2 word processor. Say Google-word. Or maybe a company we never heard of. But suddenly no "something is wrong with open source" arguments will work (whether these are FUD or not), and any other argument against it will sound like Microsoft is claiming that they are the only company legally allowed to write software.

Such software would cut far more into Word sales than Open Office (I think the result would be 50% Word, 40% this competitor, and 10% divided amoung Open Office, a dozen other free open-source products, and 5 or 6 other commercial attempts). Retaining their market share would also require them to compete on functionality by developing the software, further cutting profits.

More serious is that it removes a possible lock-in for server products for the office. Even if a place uses 100% Word, the pointy-haired boss may actually have a hint and question why the "microsoft document server" they are thinking of buying will not work with this possible competitor, and for the same price they can buy the IBM unit that works with both. Microsoft will be forced to make such products that work with both or they will lose all the sales. But they will then lose that lock in, and then lose the lock in of things that run on or talk to these servers, etc, etc.

So take them out.

[SanityInAnarchy]

What possible purpose can they serve?

Other than, say, being occasionally used by Word, creating documents which break under other implementations, making it look like a bug in those implementations?

Re:So take them out.

[man_of_mr_e]

The purpose they serve is to provide a means for converted legacy documents to retain information that would otherwise be lost. Those fields are deprecated, not just optional, and are actively suggested that they NOT be implemented. They're not intended to be used in any NEW documents, and I find it highly unlikely that Microsoft would let any apps create deocuments with them. It's pure paranoia, fear mongering, and FUD to suggest what you are suggesting.

The fact is that ODF, while a great office format for new documents, falls flat on its face when it comes to preserving legacy documents, something that is required by LAW in many cases. The whole purpose of the new file format standards is to allow documents to be read long after the applications that created them are dead and buried. ODF forgets about legacy documents, which means that unless a document converts perfect, or you hire a lot of staff to reformat documents that don't convert correctly, you're stuck keeping them in proprietary formats if you want to meet your archival responsibilities. ODF, and it's proponents, ignore this vital issue.

If OASIS had considered this problem, and addressed it in ODF, say by allowing application defined supplmentary tags for legacy support purposes, then this might never have been an issue. But by ignoring the legacy documents out there, they left the door wide open for Microsoft to argue this side of things and draw support.

Re:So take them out.

[Mathinker]

So where are the "paginateLikeFrameMakerV2.73" (and similar... that particular version number was totally made up) tags in OOXML so I can retain my non-MS legacy documents?

> ODF, and it's proponents, ignore this vital issue.

Because they cannot possible succeed. And neither can Microsoft. (and btw, you should have used "its")

> or you hire a lot of staff to reformat documents that don't convert correctly

Most of those legacy documents will not need to be edited, now, will they? So just converting them to PDF would be sufficient. I'm sure someone provides that service. I've even heard rumors here on Slashdot that Microsoft provides some kind of plug-in which can read most of the old Office file formats in the newer versions of Office. Luckily I don't need that. With my minuscule experience with trying to read old MS docs, I doubt it works in all cases (say, documents with embedded math formulas).

Re:So take them out.

[man_of_mr_e]

So where are the "paginateLikeFrameMakerV2.73" (and similar... that particular version number was totally made up) tags in OOXML so I can retain my non-MS legacy documents?

Actually, there are such tags. For instance, suppressTopSpacingWP is there for Word Perfect documents and there's a date format that is there because of bug in Lotus 123. However, i doubt there is a gigantic legacy archive of framemaker documents out there, unlike word or excel documents.

Most of those legacy documents will not need to be edited, now, will they? So just converting them to PDF would be sufficient.

PDF is a far more complex format than either OOXML or ODF. It requires a postscript engine to translate. One of the big wins of ODF and OOXML is that XML documents are easily indexed by search engines, something that is significantly harder to do with PDF.

Re:So take them out.

[spitzak]

ODF provides namespaces for exactly this purpose. You can add tags that readers are allowed to skip, to convey information that is outside the standard. These tags have rules so they are recognizable.

Obviously this can be abused, I would expect Word to do this extensively if they are forced to read/write ODF. I also expect Open Office to do so. Expect lots of arguments about whether some use of this is abusive.

HOWEVER:

The first difference with OOXML is that unlike these tags, the document is not required to simulate the results using the "standard" part, thus any document with these tags in it will not be readable unless the reader understands them.

The second difference is that there is no "namespaces". Instead there is a set of tags specifically designed for undocumented parts of Word. There is no rule for recognizing the optional tags, or rules for creating new ones. Other programs that want to insert non-standard information are not able to do so (unless they abuse these existing tags, which they probably will).

Re:So take them out.

[pallmall1]

The fact is that ODF, while a great office format for new documents, falls flat on its face when it comes to preserving legacy documents, something that is required by LAW in many cases. The whole purpose of the new file format standards is to allow documents to be read long after the applications that created them are dead and buried. ODF forgets about legacy documents, which means that unless a document converts perfect, or you hire a lot of staff to reformat documents that don't convert correctly, you're stuck keeping them in proprietary formats if you want to meet your archival responsibilities. ODF, and it's proponents, ignore this vital issue.

Nice astroturf. Microsoft -- pack the committees and turf the boards.

Legacy document support in Microsoft OOXML is based on patent encumbered proprietary format tags. The "standard" only preserves legacy documents by keeping them in the proprietary format they were made in. And it took Microsoft 6000 pages to say, "if you want to open a Word 95 document, buy a copy of Word 95," and then in fine print, "just because there is a reference to Word 95 in our patent unencumbered, pledge protected standard doesn't mean that you can use the patent encumbered and highly proprietary Microsoft Word 95 format in any implementation other than one purchased from Microsoft, now or at any time in the future."

ODF has not ignored the issue of legacy formats, and neither has Microsoft. Microsoft wants to keep legacy formats closed and preserve the lock in mechanism you blamed on ODF. ODF objects to referencing closed, proprietary formats in standards that are supposed to be open.

Re:So take them out.

[Bert64]

Why do legacy documents need to be prserved explicitely within the format?
Is the format somehow inadequate that it has no other method of specifying word 95 compatible formatting?
As an example, one of the issues i read about was that some old version of word would use a font 2 points smaller when "small caps" was turned on, surely the conversion process could simply reduce the font size within the output file, rather than having to use an explicit backwards compatibility kludge?
There's no sense in polluting a new format with crap like that. Compatibility with older formats belongs in the converter, not the format spec.

You've also forgotten the formula issues disclosed recently, where the spec doesn't fully document how formulae should be handled.

Re:So take them out.

[man_of_mr_e]

As an example, one of the issues i read about was that some old version of word would use a font 2 points smaller when "small caps" was turned on, surely the conversion process could simply reduce the font size within the output file, rather than having to use an explicit backwards compatibility kludge?

You're talking about a semantic issue. Your argument is basically the same as saying "Why do we need a bold tag in HTML, why can't we just specify a style that uses a heavier weight?" There are cases where there are semantic differences between small caps and merely using a smaller font style. Word processing documents are not just words with formatting (though many people treat them that way), they have tables of contents, links, indexes, styles, etc... semantic markup.

The whole point is to preserve the original semantic information, not do nasty (and lossy) conversions that destroy the original semantic content, which always has to make assumptions as to the meaning of those semantics. That's a process that will always be error prone, and in certain fields (legal, medical, etc..) that's simply not acceptable.

Let's take an example. Suppose you have 10,000 legal documents written in Word 95, and many of them use "small caps" to indicate a specific legal meaning. Now, let's convert the documents to ODF, and those "small caps" are merely converted to a smaller font. Ok, it may look the same, but what if I want to search through my document management systems for all documents that have terms with the specific meaning that small caps were meant to represent? If the documents are converted with that semantic information intact, I need only return all documents with 'small caps'. How do you do that with the converted document? You can't really.

That's the danger of conversion. Not all data is in the data.

Re:So take them out.

[aproposofwhat]

PDF is a far more complex format than either OOXML or ODF. It requires a postscript engine to translate. One of the big wins of ODF and OOXML is that XML documents are easily indexed by search engines, something that is significantly harder to do with PDF.

I call BS - PDF does not require a Postscript engine - one can extract the content using zlib and a couple of buffers, and Google regularly indexes PDFs.

Go home, Microtroll!

Re:So take them out.

[man_of_mr_e]

I call BS - PDF does not require a Postscript engine - one can extract the content using zlib and a couple of buffers, and Google regularly indexes PDFs.

PDF doe require a postscript engine if you want to truly understand the entire semantic markup of a document. Let's say you want to return all documents that use an underlined strikethrough text. How are you going to do that without a deep understanding of the PDF language? What's more, XML is more or less human readable, PDF isn't. Why do you think Sun chose XML for it's file format?

Yes, Google indexes PDF's, but I wasn't talking about just indexing the text. Document management systems have to understand the document as a whole (well, they don't HAVE to, but they really really want to, and it makes them much more useful). Look at projects like DataStore for a good example:

Go home, Microtroll!

You make stupid arguments without understand the full context, and you accuse me of trolling? I work on document managements systems. I know WTF i'm talking about. The document marketplace is a lot more involved than you think it is.

Re:So take them out.

[aproposofwhat]

Suppose you have 10,000 legal documents written in Word 95

Again, I call BS - my experience of dealing with legal firms in the 90's was that they all (without exception) used WordPerfect, so the idea of a corpus of 10,000 legal documents in Word 95 format is numinous to say the least.

Perhaps you could expand on what specific legal meaning would be represented by 'small caps' in Word 95?

Besides, one of the drivers for SGML was to allow semantics to be stored as part of a document, and ODF, as a proper subset of SGML, is extensible in this way, in a manner that OOXML with its references to proprietary formats is not.

Your argument is simply fallacious - if there is a specific semantic meaning to 'small caps', the proper route to conversion is to create a well defined semantic tag for that case, and as an attribute to that tag, specify a smaller font - not to simply preserve an intrinsically meaningless attribute like 'small caps'.

Re:So take them out.

[aproposofwhat]

Why on earth would I wish to search for all documents that have underlined strikethrough text?

Is there a semantic standard for using underline and strikethrough, or is it some arbitrary convention adopted by someone at some time?

There is a proper standard for semantic markup, and it's called SGML.

The proper process for conversion of an arbitrary markup scheme would involve the creation of a translation schema, and the use of a proper standard (hint - not OOXML) for the output documents.

OK - you work in document management, so you have to deal with real-world situations in which people use arbitrary conventions and proprietary formats, but that's no reason to defend OOXML. Microsoft having a dominant position in the marketplace does not excuse them from a duty to do things properly - they should adopt ODF and (as another poster points out) use namespaces to isolate their idiosyncracies.

Sorry for the 'Microtroll', by the way - I'm always a little intemperate in the mornings :P.

Re:So take them out.

[man_of_mr_e]

It was an example. The fact that you seem unable to grasp that says you're more interested in finding reasons to reject the argument than consider it.

You're absolutely right that XML is capable of supporting anything you like, but if you do, it's no longer ODF. You've extended it. And the moment Microsoft were to extend ODF, the cries of "embrace, extend, extinguish" would fly from every blog and newsgroup. So don't even pretend that's an option.

Re:So take them out.

[man_of_mr_e]

I'm not, necessarily, defending OOXML. What I am doing, however, is arguing that ODF isn't the be all, end all. In particular when it comes to legacy documents. And extending the standard would be a HUGE can of worms. you know as well as I do that Microsoft can't extend anything without being accused of attempting to pervert and control the standard. In a perfect world, i'd agree with you. But in todays world, I would say that Microsoft is damned either way they go, so in their eyes it's likely a lot easier to just define their own format than put themselves at the mercy of IBM and Sun.

Re:So take them out.

[man_of_mr_e]

I forgot to add. Why would you search based on semantics? Because that's what a Document Management System has to do. It has to give users the ability to find documents via more than just keywords and indexing content. Yes, my example was arbitrary, but that kind of ad-hoc search happens all the time. And you're also right that in a perfect world, SGML would be used, but users use word processors, not SGML document creation tools... in the real world.

And no, having a dominant position does not excuse them from a duty to do things properly, it effectively makes it impossible for them to do so. There's more at stake than just documents. It's entire knowledge bases. It's the sum content of many institutions existence. You really don't get just how important something like this is.

By the way, there's also something else to consider here. When Microsoft began working on XML file formats for Office, ODF hadn't even been started yet. When Office 2003 shipped it's XML file format (upon which OOXML is largely based), the ODF committee had basically just been formed, and Sun hadn't even donated the file format yet. By the time ODF was anywhere near ready for release, Microsoft had basically already put 4 years of effort into OOXML (before it was called that). So now there were already legacy XML documents out there. Sun had it easy, ODF conformed to their schedule, and was based on their format. Microsoft didn't have that luxury. And they had committments to customers to meet, so they were forced to do it all themselves, rather than hope their competitors got around to finishing their work (even if they were participating) in time.

At least that's the way I see it. Things just aren't as clear cut as many would like to make them seem. It's not simply a matter of "Oh, why didn't Microsoft just use ODF?".

Re:So take them out.

[mrchaotica]

The purpose they serve is to provide a means for converted legacy documents to retain information that would otherwise be lost.

But that's the wrong way to do it! You don't say "do it the way Word 95 did," you actually specify how it did it and then mark it up with the appropriate tags. For example, say italics in Word 95 were tilted 20 degrees. You don't mark that up as "<Word95Italics>[foo]</Word95Italics>", you mark it up as "<italics tilt="20 degrees">[foo]</italics>"!

Besides, backwards compatibility doesn't belong in the document format, it belongs in the software that translates between the formats. It's only in OOXML because the "document format" is a glorified memory dump of the software that implements it, and are thus inseperable.

Re:So take them out.

[SanityInAnarchy]

Your argument is basically the same as saying "Why do we need a bold tag in HTML, why can't we just specify a style that uses a heavier weight?"

The difference is, HTML is not and never was intended to preserve a document pixel-perfect, the way PDF does. People do not have an unreasonable expectation that bold will look exactly the same on all browsers.

In fact, if you read the spec, you find that it does not expect identical implementations. They do provide an image of what it might look like, but the spec is intentionally vague in order to be flexible.

However, as I understand it, the reason for all this cruft in the OOXML "standard" is so that old documents may be preserved pixel-perfect, in complete implementations -- in other words, in Word 2007, since no one else can produce a complete implementation. And here's the huge difference -- if you look at the language of the HTML spec, it's intended that different browsers might display bold text differently. But if you look at the OOXML spec, it's intended that anyone implementing the SmallCapsLikeWord95 tag (or whatever) should implement it exactly like Word 95.

In other words, the HTML spec is exactly as vague as the standard is intended to be, while the OOXML spec wants you to implement it in a very specific way, but they won't tell you how.

Word processing documents are not just words with formatting (though many people treat them that way), they have tables of contents, links, indexes, styles, etc... semantic markup.

You just answered your own question:

Let's take an example. Suppose you have 10,000 legal documents written in Word 95, and many of them use "small caps" to indicate a specific legal meaning. Now, let's convert the documents to ODF, and those "small caps" are merely converted to a smaller font.

Well, I would actually define a style that is "SmallCapsLikeWord95", but which also defines that the capital letters use a smaller font. It may mean you need a more powerful style engine than ODF currently has -- but by "more powerful", I mean allowing a style to specify a separate font size for caps and lowercase, not having a built-in style that requires every implementation to carry around cruft from Word95.

The result: ODF can have a simpler implementation, while still preserving all the information you want it to -- including being able to search for all your SmallCaps stuff. And maybe now you start using styles properly -- you rename that "SmallCapsLikeWord95" style in the new document to something that reflects what you want small caps to mean.

Re:So take them out.

[SanityInAnarchy]

The purpose they serve is to provide a means for converted legacy documents to retain information that would otherwise be lost.

Not true. Read my comment here. The idea is to extend the style engine to be able to support most of the arbitrary crap, so that actual "SpacingLikeWord95" can be implemented as a style in that particular document, and need not be retained for posterity in every single implementation of ODF (or OOXML) -- but implementations that don't truly understand SpacingLikeWord95 will still be able to present the document properly, or search/index it based on arbitrary properties like that.

Those fields are deprecated, not just optional

You know, in most standards, deprecated stuff is deprecated specifically because it is going to be taken out, so the "depricated" notice is to tell you to stop using them before they are removed permanently.

If that's really what Microsoft is doing, then they are basically doing exactly what I suggested (take them out), just more slowly.

and are actively suggested that they NOT be implemented

Then why are they in the fucking standard (and in Word 2007) if they're not supposed to be implemented?

They're not intended to be used in any NEW documents, and I find it highly unlikely that Microsoft would let any apps create deocuments with them.

Ok, so not only are they not meant to be implemented in an office suite, they're not even supposed to ever show up in a document. So take them out of the standard. No need to have a six thousand page standard filled with crap like that.

The whole purpose of the new file format standards is to allow documents to be read long after the applications that created them are dead and buried.

Which is exactly why these legacy tags are a mistake, if they were ever intended for anything other than lock-in.

Since, as you say, it's suggested that you NOT implement them, that means old documents, even in the new standard, will only be readable as long as some version of Microsoft Office is still around. So, if MS Office is ever dead and buried, these documents die with them.

Which kills the whole point of having a new standard in the first place, according to you. (Another good reason for standards is to allow interchange between competing products, but that's obviously not Microsoft's intent here.)

If OASIS had considered this problem, and addressed it in ODF, say by allowing application defined supplmentary tags for legacy support purposes

They do. It's called namespaces.

They are not included in the standard, of course, for obvious reasons. But they are there, even if I think the problem would be better solved with styles.

You know, I'm not convinced you're trolling, but I'm also not convinced that OOXML serves any useful purpose. The only reason we're even having this conversation is that Office supports OOXML and not ODF. Were it not for that, OOXML wouldn't be given a second thought.

Dollar signs, OMG COOL!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Office 2007 does not export to systems before Office 2007 is because it can't and it won't export well to any other system but it's own.

Erm, do you really believe people will fall for this? This is complete bullshit. Have you ever even *used* Office at all?

I'm not the biggest fan of Microsoft or their products, but you need to stop this. You make the rest of us look stupid and ignorant, and I'd just as well you look stupid and ignorant on your own.

evil

[oohshiny]

For Microsoft to push 14+ new members into a standards body of previously 7 members just to get their agenda passed is evil; standards bodies are supposed to be based on unbiased expert opinions, not short-term commercial interests. Some bias can't be avoided, but one doesn't have to create it artificially.

I think ANSI should remove authorization from INCITS to make recommendations, since INCITS has demonstrated that they can't be trusted.

My irony meter just exploded

[DragonHawk]

I think OpenOffice should sue them for trademark infringement

OpenOffice should sue them? Don't you mean OpenOffice.org should?

(See here, under "Trademark", for what I'm talking about.)

Re:My irony meter just exploded

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations, captain obvious!

The process is manipulated worldwide by MSFT

[Anonymous Coward]

As an example of how Microsoft is manipulating the whole process everywhere, take Portugal IPQ standards body (the national ISO body there): The chairman of the technical committee to study the granting of the ISO standard to MSOOXML happens to be a Microsoft employee, first they tried to fill as many seats as possible at the committee with Micrososft partners, including Microsoft employees, one of them at the presidency, such as "Primavera", "Jurinfor" and "ASSOFT", then they denied Sun and IBM the possibility of participating in the process with the lame excuse that there were not enough chairs on the meeting room!!!! (Was Ballmer visiting the premises before the meeting?)

Join the www.noooxml.info campaign and also the www.openxml.info sister campaign for latin america!

Sources:
In English:
http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&si d=20070716141225333&title=More+Portugese+OOXML+blo gs&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=595143# c595183
http://joaobarros.bsdtech.org/2007/07/17/not-enoug h-seats-for-sun-and-ibm-to-discuss-ooxml/
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F %2Fabretesw.blogspot.com%2F2007%2F07%2Fsun-microsy stems-sem-espao-na.html&langpair=pt%7Cen&hl=en&ie= UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools

In Portuguese:
http://www.openxml.info/index.php?option=com_conte nt&task=category&sectionid=5&id=7&Itemid=13
http://mv.asterisco.pt/2007/Jun/cat.cgi?MS%20OOXML
http://abretesw.blogspot.com/2007/07/sun-microsyst ems-sem-espao-na.html

As Joao Barros report:
Not enough seats for Sun and IBM to discuss OOXML

Just read Paulo Vilela's post about how a request by Sun and IBM to become part of the Portuguese Technical Committee established to discuss document standards in Portugal was denied. Why? There are no seats. And I do mean CHAIRS!!!

I'm ashamed of my country, again.

Note: Paulo Vilela is a Sun employe in Portugal and his post is in Portuguese, so here is the page translated to English, via Google.

Read the Halloween memos...

[Xenographic]

> You know as well as I do that the offer by Oasis for Microsoft to participate is disingenuous. The group is dominated by Microsoft's competitors who would do everything in their power (as evidenced by the blog articles they write on a daily basis, and legal maneuvering they keep coming up with) to sideline and make their participation in the group moot.

Oh no, beware of the bloggers? Umm, it's Microsoft who got Peter Quin fired for using ODF. It's Microsoft who is stuffing the ballot boxes here (and managed to get Sun & IBM excluded in Portugal... I'd link, but the article is in Portuguese, see Groklaw). And how can they "make it hard for Microsoft" when there are several existing, open source applications that use ODF? It's not like they can all just rewrite their code at once to screw Microsoft. It was never even made with that goal in mind; you just have your tinfoil hat on too tight.

> I believe that Microsoft would have participated in ODF if they believed their requirements for a file format would be met (ie. one that would support legacy documents and allow 100% document fidelity). I am certain they believed that participating in the Oasis group would have been a pointless exercise in futility, and they would end up with the same useless (to them, because it won't represent legacy documents) spec they have now.

There are plenty of ways to extend ODF with vendor-specific extensions. Do they really need something like, say, yet another way of word-wrapping? (Maybe, but only if they want to preserve the internals of long-dead legacy applications in every format in the future... they DO have a formatLikeWord95 flag in there, and it's not alone). But while ODF is full of open standards, Microsoft stuffed every Microsoft proprietary "standard" into OOXML.

As for why, haven't you read the Halloween memos? They've considered open protocols a threat for practically a decade now. They want them nice & proprietary so Microsoft can collect a toll on everyone using them.

> You'll want to spin this as a power struggle, and claim that Microsoft wouldn't participate because they would not have been able to control things. To that, I counter that Microsoft has participated in many standards, such as C, C++, XML itself, etc.. all without control over the working group. But the difference here is that the ODF committee was, by nature of it's makeup consisting almost entirely of their competitors, deliberately hostile to Microsoft.

Ahh, C/C++ were well outside their control. And they didn't need to control the language itself, just to have their own Windows APIs to keep control. XML is similar. Also, just who do you think isn't a Microsoft competitor? I see that you left Java off of that list, too.

> It's no surprise they decided not to participate, and develop their own XML format. ODF was never intended to support Office, and was likely positioned to make it difficult for Microsoft to do so.

The people developing ODF have their own products to support. They can't just make life miserable for Microsoft without making it hard on themselves, too. And why couldn't Microsoft's own standard have been based on ODF? They don't need anyone's approval for that! They could do it all themselves and build in what they need. And just what, pray tell, do you think they need that they can put in OOXML but not ODF? Unless you mean the garbage dump of legacy code represented by all those bugs they're carrying forward (the Excel date bug, the formatting quirks of every word processor format Office has ever been able to import, and many, many, many more).

> You really have to look at this from the political aspect, as well as the technical one. Read between the lines.

Yeah, everyone else worked together to make a format that would work for them. Microsoft said, "Screw you, I'll make my own format! With blackjack and hookers! In fact, forget the bad Futurama joke!" Then people started going for the other format instead of Micros

Re:Read the Halloween memos...

[man_of_mr_e]

Oh no, beware of the bloggers? Umm, it's Microsoft who got Peter Quin fired for using ODF.

No. The bloggers are merely the mouthpieces of their employers (just as Brian Jones and other Microsoft bloggers are for theirs), voicing their employers agenda. There's nothing to 'beware' of.

And for the record, Peter Quin wasn't just "using ODF", they were excluding Microsoft, likely in collusion with Sun. This is easily evidenced by the fact that early on Quin said that they'd consider Microsoft if they opened up their office format, because they didn't believe Microsoft would do so. They later backtracked on that promise when Microsoft did just that. I don't condone what Microsoft did in Mass, but I don't think Quin and Co were being honest either, or they would have lived up to the promises they made about considering Office when certain conditions were met, rather than outright pretending they never said it.

And how can they "make it hard for Microsoft" when there are several existing, open source applications that use ODF?

All of which, other than OpenOffice, are reduced functionality applications that make only partial use of ODF, and functionally are complete subsets of OOo. Office is not a subset of OOo, and it has features that OOo doesn't have, nor can be supported by the ODF spec.

Suppose you were a database vendor, like Oracle. Then, suppose your competitors got together and created a "standard" Database format, and that format was based on MySQL. Do you really expect that Oracle would be able to make their high end database product work in the MySQL format? Or the MSSQL format? Or the DB2 format? Unlikely.

There are plenty of ways to extend ODF with vendor-specific extensions.

Are you serious? You seriously don't believe that Microsoft wouldn't be roasted alive for "extending" ODF? That they'd be accused of perverting it, and trying to extinquish it? Wow.

Do they really need something like, say, yet another way of word-wrapping? (Maybe, but only if they want to preserve the internals of long-dead legacy applications in every format in the future... they DO have a formatLikeWord95 flag in there, and it's not alone). But while ODF is full of open standards, Microsoft stuffed every Microsoft proprietary "standard" into OOXML.

The difference is that Microsoft deprecated all that functionality. It *allows* it, but doesn't require it, nor does it recommend it's use. It's there strictly to support the *BILLIONS* of legacy documents that already exist, without wich conversion would be an impossible task. The whole point of an XML format is to make it more parsable by third party tools such as search engines and document management systems. If you can't convert the documents without fear of losing data, it makes those products useless for legacy archives.

As for why, haven't you read the Halloween memos?

Are you one of those people that actually believes that memo was anything other than an analysts opinion? I guess that explains a lot.

Ahh, C/C++ were well outside their control. And they didn't need to control the language itself, just to have their own Windows APIs to keep control. XML is similar. Also, just who do you think isn't a Microsoft competitor? I see that you left Java off of that list, too.

You missed the point. Microsoft still participated in those committees. What does Java have to do with anything anyways? It's a proprietary technology owned completely and totally by Sun. Even though they've now GPL'd it, they're still in control of it (until someone forks it, and that fork becomes dominant). What was your point, and how does it relate to this discussion?

And just what, pray tell, do you think they need that they can put in OOXML but not ODF? Unless you mean the garbage dump of legacy code represented by all those bugs they're carrying forward (the Excel date bug, the formatting quirks of every word processor format Office has ever been able to

I intend to write candidates.

[SanityInAnarchy]

Mostly because I have not seen any candidates weigh in on technical issues that I care about:

• DRM
• The DMCA (please legalize DeCSS for things which don't already violate copyright)
• Trusted Computing (a step further -- please don't let them restrict what I can run on MY hardware)
• Open standards (ODF)
• Net neutrality (be very clear here, as the term now means two opposite viewpoints)
• Voting machines (Diebold needs to die)
• Software patents (Abolish them until reform, at least)
• Length of IP (patents and copyrights), especially on software
• Frivolous lawsuits (MAFIAA) and DMCA notices (Uri Geller)
• Campaign finance reform (no one should be allowed to buy legislation)

I think I've got everything. The trick is to write a letter that is short enough to actually be read, long enough to explain the above to a layman, and polite enough that it doesn't insult the layman's intelligence -- and then to fire it off to all the candidates I would consider in the first place, and see if I get a real response.

Re:I intend to write candidates.

[Qubit]

Sounds good to me -- submit a story to /. when you come up with some good wording and good information resources to explain these concepts to congresscritters (and other not-so-geeky people).

We won't get everyone on /. writing-in, but hopefully there will be a few hundred letters in support of our Geektacular (yes, I just made that up, and it's totally a word) position. Who knows -- we might not be an 800lb gorilla, but with enough "bees" stinging the politicians we will definitely get noticed...

If MS did embrace ODF

[asscroft]

Wouldn't we just complain about them "embracing and extending" ODF? Anyone remember J++. They tried to make their own version of Java that compiled against the JVM and Sun sued them. So instead they went and built .NET and C#. Now we have C# and Java to choose from. In a way the competition has been good. In a way it kinda sucks. I can almost guarantee that if MS said "we're gonna support ODF" we'd be predicting how they're going to embrace and extend it.

Re:If MS did embrace ODF

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

May be I am feeding a troll, still ...

You need competition among vendors. Not among standards. You want everyone from Yokohoma to Goodyear to Cooper to Bridgestone building tires compatible with your car. You dont want to choose between Ford-Tire Standard vs GM Tire Standard vs Toyota Tire Standard.

What do you gain by having to choose between .Net and C# and Java? If you have three vendors fighting on a single platform, be it .Net or C# or Java, they will sell you more and more feature rich IDEs, innovate and come up with increasingly more functional standards updates, fix security holes and reduce prices. If they dont they risk losing your business. If you choose .Net or C#, you would be where the internet was when Netscape was killed. There is no incentive for MSFT to innovate or improve anything. No pressure to reduce the prices. You are locked in and you have absolutely no negotiating power.

Re:If MS did embrace ODF

[mgiuca]

So the open source community will not be happy if Microsoft attempts to crush ODF with their own apparently-open standard (which clearly is not for technical and legal reasons), and uses its money and manipulative powers to push it through.

AND the open source community will not be happy if Microsoft embraces ODF and then extends it to their own needs and ends up in control of the once-open format. ... I for one think the open source community are perfectly reasonable on both counts.

Re:If MS did embrace ODF

[ToriaUru]

Yes, I'd agree with you on those points. It's really not in the best interest of the open source community to have this happen.

ISO Member bodies' OWN web sites non-standard

[eturro]

How can anyone take ISO seriously when hardly a single one of the member bodies' web sites validate with W3. Hell, the Greek Member web site even uses some shitty Flash "intro"!

What a disgrace.

Sign! www.noooxml.org if you havent already.

[jhhdk]

http://www.noooxml.org/petition

Complain to FTC?

[walterbyrd]

If msft is ballot stuffing to push msft standards, then shouldn't the FTC be concerned?

http://www.antitrustlawblog.com/article-133-ftc-ap proves-chevrons-acquisition-of-unocal-on-conditio
n-of-release-of-patent-rights-to-carb-reformulated -gasoline.html

The DoJ should be concerned, but that won't happen under this administration.

My favorite part of the dichotomy

[Benanov]

If OOXML is more superior at storing legacy documents, then how can you have a 100% convertor to ODF?

They don't win

[gzunk]

Sorry to disillusion you, but it's not up to the US.

The fight is to get OOXML fast tracked as an ISO standard, not ANSI. ISO. International Standards Organisation.

If Americans allow Microsoft to buy out the US vote, then it's left up to the rest of the world to ensure that ISO doesn't fast track it.

Re:They don't win

[sgtrock]

This isn't just a US issue. Microsoft is doing this all over the world. They've already stacked the deck in Portugal, for Ghu's sake!

Oh, that's easy.

[twitter]

I've been exchanging MSO2007 documents for six months with Office 2003 users. With no problems at all. It's like I live in this parallel dimension where everything you claim doesn't work actually does.

Let's just say that you and I have different definitions of "works". I should have expected you'd be one of those paying $400 to be the thin edge of the M$ new format wedge. The people you work with must hate you.

Re:Oh, that's easy.

[dedazo]

"Works" mean just that, it works. I have plenty of proof, whereas all you have is the usual "I don't believe you, so I'll just insult you". Please, point me to some article that documents how people with MSO2003 cannot read MSO2007 Word, Excel and PowerPoint documents. You know, including the people that "hate me", as you so cleverly put it.

I mean, I suppose it's possible that every single document I've sent to clients, co-workers and business partners over the past six months have gone unread. God, that would be awful! So really, I'd love to see you back your lies up so I can see the error of my ways.

Otherwise, may I interest you in a nice cup of shut the fuck up?

M$ should fix that, of course.

[twitter]

Even OASIS doesn't agree with you, as they've already set up 2 working groups to address the incompleteness of it .... legacy documents from Microsoft, Word Perfect, Lotus, and others, which is a HUGE problem for anyone that will want to convert their archive of documents to an open standard.

The problems of access you talk about are the main reason to immediately stop storing things in M$ formats. The only people who know M$ secrets are M$, but not even they can untangle the mess they made. I've heard people say that Open Office is better than M$ Office for opening older M$ documents. The more M$ you store, the worse it gets and this is why ODF exists.

Re:M$ should fix that, of course.

[Anonymous Coward]

Selective quoting fails you. Try addressing the fact the GP was talking about ODF being an incomplete shambles rather than rambling about OOXML.

Re:Mountains from Molehills

[5of0]

And we all know the opposition to OOXML is purely because it's being put forth by MS. Had it been put forth by OOO or some other pro-Lunix group, you know ANSI would have been really eager to drink from their mule.

And that's a bad thing? "Open" and "Microsoft" don't fit together. There's already an open format put forth by OOO or some other pro-Lunix group - it's called ODF. Why would Microsoft release their own, if not to try to control it as much as they can? There is a reason we don't trust Microsoft - it's a big corporation, with vested interests, whereas the people behind ODF are not a big corporation, but an organization that's dedicated to openness. ODF is a lot safer than OOXML because of it.
In summary... Duh?

Ridiculous

[Xenographic]

> Ok, it may look the same, but what if I want to search through my document management systems for all documents that have terms with the specific meaning that small caps were meant to represent?

Well, I don't think you can search the Word95 documents like that, anyhow. It's a closed, proprietary and dead format. Also, if they're anything like the real documents I've seen, "looks the same" is the only thing that matters, because people are going to read legal meanings, not machines, and they won't be able to tell that this thing is one pixel smaller or one shade of gray lighter.

Moreover, the actual documents, being generated by humans, are almost certainly inconsistent. And even if generated by machine (in which case, you should still have the source data) they'll be made inconsistent if edited by humans who, again, are only going to go for "looks the same." I've yet to see anyone actually use any kind of system like yours outside of a research setting because, frankly office documents are read by humans and the searches you describe are almost useless. Who searches their documents and thinks "well, I don't remember even one phrase of the original, but I know it used a lot of bold capital letters, so I'll search for that"?

In reality, there's no use for the data they're keeping. Anything like that is because the average Office user has no idea how to create document styles and the markup isn't meaningful, it was just tweaked until they thought it looked good (even if it changes fonts three times for no reason). And even if there was, they could hide that data away in the vendor-specific area of ODF (or they could create such a thing withing OOXML... oh wait, doesn't it have anything to support non-Microsoft vendors? my bad) and give the real, useful information of how the damn thing is supposed to look with standard markup.

So the real answer to your question is this: there's nothing preventing them from keeping the data, and the only reasons to do it the way that they did are because they're lazy and can use legacy code by doing a brain-dump of existing Office formats and because this increases the cost for anyone else to use their spec. Sure, you don't "have" to implement those features. Unless you want converted OOXML documents to look right, ever.

Remember, those legacy tags will stay with the document forever. So every word processor until the end of time that uses OOXML will have to remember how all the major word processors before them did things. And that, my friends, is an incredibly stupid way to do things technically, but a great way to screw over your competitors... if you're Microsoft.

Friends, use XML for documents, not data!

[Anonymous Coward]

You are definitely not alone. XML is overengineered and overcomplicated when used for data interchange or configuration files. Unfortunately, due to hype and momentum, XML gets used for the wrong jobs. And they say XML is like violence: if it doesn't solve your problem, use more.

As an aside, and this is just a hunch, I think the idea of XML "flexibility" encourages poor thinking that leads to layer upon layer of abstraction and bloat. I get data files sent to me in XML format that take 1000 bytes of markup and elements to convey 50 bytes of information. For hundreds of thousands of records. If any of you are guilty of this, stop it!