Slashdot Mirror
OOXML Won't Get Fast-Track ISO Standardization
realdodgeman writes "The International Committee for Information Technology Standards (INCITS) recently held an internal poll to determine the position that the United States should take on Microsoft's request for Office Open XML (OOXML) approval. With eight votes in favor, seven against, and one abstention, the group was one vote short of the nine votes required for approving OOXLM ISO standardization. This will mean a huge slowdown to the standardization to the OOXML format. 'Given the controversial nature, relative complexity, and significant importance of the standard, the results of INCIT's vote is unsurprising. An INCITS technical committee also voted against fast-track OOXML approval last month prior to the executive board's vote. Further deliberation is clearly needed as well as further refinement of the format. It seems as though many of the organizations participating in the approval process are generally supportive of the standard itself, but are unwilling to voice unconditional support until their concerns are resolved. OOXML may be down, but it's certainly not out.'"
Its by Microsoft, they cant even make their various versions of office forwards and backwards compatible and people expect them to put a standard out that will hold to the same?
Also why doesnt Open Office.org sue Microsoft for trademark infringement or something for their obviously deceptively labeled standard that is being proposed?
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
+2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
I don't think this standardization is being passed for the benefit of the consumers. Microsoft has had a firm grasp on business establishments with MS Office for quite a long time. There was competition, but nothing ever really came close to worry Microsoft. I find it not all that coincidental that now Microsoft has real competition (Google, Open Office, etc.) that they're trying to pass a standard. Microsoft is trying to reinstate a strong presence in the office. It hasn't really lost the one it has, but its teetering over the edge. Especially with all the relatively recent reports of various government offices going to open source, free software suites.
Given the speed with which Microsoft attempted to ram through their "standard" and the dubiousness of the tactics employed (see discussions over on Groklaw), that was far too close to take any comfort from.
The real questions now are:
(a) how to ensure that the various standards organizations around the world really sit up and pay attention so that the obvious technical deficiencies and the crippling lack of open-ness in the proposal -- which were pointed out over and over again by individuals and companies opposed to the fast-tracking -- will be truly taken into account?
(b) how to keep Microsoft from succeeding with their tactic of stacking attendance at national standards organizations meetings to carry the day for them?
They almost succeeded the last time. If something doesn't change, they won't fail next time.
licet differant, aequabitur
My canonical reference for these things is Andy Updegrove's blog (http://consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/).
I don't mind this becoming a standard if it is truly "standard", which means that in the implementation documentation, EVERYTHING about it is disclosed, with no NDA, or proprietary "features". If that happens, I support OOXML for standardization. I (and many others) would welcome MS disclosing how it will work, as well as how all parts are suppose to work, which means explaining how to make something "work the way Office 97 cell format spacing" works and all other definitions in the standard which state it will the same way something else already works in previous Word and Excel versions. Tell us how to do everything and I will give MS full support for it being a recognized ISO standard.
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
This decision was only for the U.S. and it's not over there. Look carefully at the comments by those who voted, and you'll see there is room for changes. Look at Lexmark's comment...
It's very important to understand that the OOXML fight is not over. Microsoft are doing a fantastic job of explaining to committees why this format deserves to be an international standard, and of ensuring no-one gets onto the committees who can raise this dreamy proposition.
We are looking at a lot of votes between now and end-August, across the world, and it's still not too late to submit comments to - for example - the Australian Standards Authority, which will almost certainly vote YES to OOXML.
On NoOOXML.org the FFII is coordinating the fight. If you've not signed the petition, please do so.
My blog
IN SOVIET RUSSIA, tired old meme regurgitates formula on you!
What are you talking about? ODF was designed by the OASIS group - a group of a dozen different companies. It was open for any to participate in. Even Microsoft themselves were at the start involved, but they decided to drop out.
It was then developed in the open over a period of 3 years. It reuses as many previous open standards as possible (MathML for math stuff, SVG for vector graphics, etc).
In what possible way can you claim that this is a proprietary proposal and not an open design process? It seems your love for MS has blinded you.
"Document Markup" is an interesting way of describing of
And yet, Microsoft prance around with the "Open" prefix. And yet, their RAND patent license excludes free software.
The difference being that Microsoft's spec has things like "do it the way Office 97 does it", and the ODF spec doesn't.
The simple fact that there are other Office suites already reading and writing ODF files other than OOo/StarOffice (Abiword, KOffice for example) demonstrates that it is a viable and workable standard.
It's my impression (others have read more of the 6,000 pages of documents than I have) that the same could not be successfully achieved from the OOXML spec.
That's funny, exactly what Microsoft seems to be planning. Their royalty free patent license may only be granted if you implement their standard EXACTLY (a herculean feat in itself). Want to enhance or modify your software, as the GPL explicitly sates you should be allowed to do? Sorry, you just agreed to get sued by Microsoft..