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
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
I've spent the last 5 years working in the office software space (mobile phones). From what our customers tell us, Microsoft's dominance of the office market is still incredibly strong. We've toyed with ODF support, but customer demand simply doesn't exist. At the end of the day our customers (many many millions) have expressed very little enthusiasm for anything but the Microsoft formats.
In reality (at least as I see it) Microsoft has pushed their XML format not to maintain market share, but rather to give them a foothold in web services. They see their productivity suite as a broad authoring tool for not just documents, but all kinds of data. The closed formats where a major roadblock for them, because their customers could not use the data produced by the suite to actually do anything useful with it in a web 2.0 sense. A open, standardized format gives Microsoft the ability to pursue this "software as a service" model in a much more meaningful way.
It's interesting, since there are several companies (most of which have been rolled up in one way or another now) that where doing exactly what Microsoft wants to be doing. They had reverse engineered the binary office file formats, and where using that knowledge to provide data processing for various companies wanting to use the suite as an authoring tool for their internal services. I think Microsoft looked at that (along with what Google and the like have been doing) and simply saw a really good opportunity to extend their near monopoly on productivity into an entirely new business. I really do believe it is nothing more evil than that.
Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
My canonical reference for these things is Andy Updegrove's blog (http://consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/).
Then why the unseemly haste, committee stacking, and other nefarious practices to get adopted as an ISO standard?
Why the attacks on ODF adoption? If Microsoft had any intention of being interoperable, they'd have supported ODF from the start..
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
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!
"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..