Slashdot Mirror
If This Was a Month Ago, OOXML Would Be Over
Andy Updegrove writes "Public announcements of how Participating members of ISO have voted on OOXML are now rolling in one at a time, and the trend thus far is meaningfully weighted towards 'No with comments.' By my count, there are now four announced Yes votes, with comments, two abstentions, and seven public No with comments votes for OOXML in ISO/IEC JT1. Korea has reportedly voted no as well, and I expect at least Canada, Japan and the United Kingdom to announce 'No with comments' today or tomorrow. There will be more no votes on the roster when the final results are announced in a day or two. But even if the 11 votes I know of now were the only votes, the vote would now have failed — but for the 11 countries that upgraded their status from Observer to Participating member status in the last few weeks. Without those extra 11 'P' countries, it would only require 10 votes to block OOXML from immediate approval. If most or all of those additional 'P' members vote 'yes' as expected, it will confirm suspicions that Microsoft has promoted extra votes in favor of OOXML not only within National Bodies, but within ISO itself."
Do we want this voted down? I haven't kept up with the newsletter.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
OO matron!
There's pretty good vote tracking going on here, and as of a little while ago they're calling the vote failed: too many "no" votes to get the 2/3 majority needed to pass.
That doesn't mean it's over: there's a resolution process over the next few months, culminating in a vote in February, to address the comments submitted with "no, with comments" votes. If the comments are resolved to the voter's satisfaction, the "no" vote can be changed to a "yes".
Expect Microsoft to pull out all the stops to get countries to change there votes even without the comments being resolved. You thought there were dirty tricks before? You ain't seen nothing yet.
Or perhaps they'll just fix the standard. Ha ha ha ha...er, sorry.
-- Alastair
Utterly ignoring the actual standard being discussed, I have to say that my respect for and general goodwill toward the ISO process has been fairly well shaken. Its a shame really because standardisation (if not of spelling) is one of those things that has driven innovation and allowed our society to progress enormously. Having now seen the process involved in deciding on a new standard, and more importantly how it can or may be manipulated is frankly disturbing.
Well I guess its a good thing to have your faith in something shaken, doubly if it means that from here on in the respect and admiration that I had for international standards bodies must now be earned. (Not that my opinion will matter, but I am sure other more influential voices have also taken note.)
Seriously, what's the point of "yes, with comments"? I mean, if the standard is endorsed, what are the odds that the comments will be addressed? It's a completely toothless vote, and it might as well be a straight-up "Yes" vote. Whoever sold those countries the idea that "Yes, with comments" is different from "Yes" sold them a bill of goods.
If a proposed standard is acceptable as it is, but during review you found points where it can still be improved, "yes with comments" is the appropriate vote.
Eric S. Raymond (ESR) commented on Microsoft's OOXML tactics as they relate to their proposed open source licenses in a OSI blog entry.
I agree pretty much with his position. If the playing field were anything near to level, I would have no issue in evaluating Microsoft's license submissions purely on their merits, just like any other license. However, I have difficulty in reconciling Microsoft wanting to be treated fairly by OSI with Microsoft's tactics in their attempts to ram OOXML through ISO. If Microsoft can game the ISO approval process, shouldn't it be fair for us to game the OSI approval process?
The Busy Coder's Guide to Android Development
My goodness, corporations are jockeying for advantage in standards bodies? 1907 called; they want their headlines back.
Microsoft's power is a temporary thing, just like IBM's before it. Quit wasting your time obsessing over it and worry about real social ills.
Surely you're not suggesting that Microsoft would throw its money around in order to obtain special treatment.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
As pointed out in this U.S. supreme court decision, "Agreement on a product standard is, after all, implicitly an agreement not to manufacture, distribute, or purchase certain types of products." In the case of OOXML, the agreement is primarily about not manufacturing, distributing or puchasing products relying on the truly open document format standard ODF.
Really it is only acceptable for the standardization of OOXML to proceed if OOXML is first revised to make it "map ODF", see this article for a precise definition and detailed argument.
We all know that Microsoft corrupts and destroys standards from the outside in. Java comes to mind, as well as the maliciously-compliant dhcp client in Vista. But this would be new (at least to me) - an attempt to corrupt a standards body from the inside out.
Luckily, it seems to be more difficult to trick engineering standards groups.
Again, I can't overemphasize that this kind of hardball, take-no-prisoners approach is very much the exception and that ISO (and the national bodies) simply aren't prepared to deal with it. Have a look at the comments of, for instance, the Hungarian government for a taste of how "enlightening" this has all been.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
I don't know why the /. crowd always assumes Microsoft is some crazy puppet master pulling strings in all these places to get more people involved in the ISO standardization and voting. If there's anything Microsoft doesn't want, it's to get caught up in more antitrust lawsuits.
Did it occur to you that when there are Microsoft partners involved in these things (Oh no, Microsoft must have paid them off!) they might just be acting in their OWN business interests? If McAfee votes for something, do you just assume that they're doing Microsoft's bidding because they're a partner?
There is so much bloodlust against Microsoft here it's scary. The world is more complex than Microsoft v Open Source. Everyone acts in their own interests, even Microsoft 'partners' and other tech groups.
Yes, lots of new people got involved with this vote. Maybe that's because there was more money and importance to their business interests than before.
Microsoft isn't going to be hurt by a failed vote. The point of "No, with comments" is that they can address the comments and resubmit for reconsideration. It's probably safe to say that it, in one version or another, will become a standard because Microsoft has the will and resources to fix everything that needs fixing and follow this through until the end.
If all you really care about is the defeat of Microsoft, this is absolutely a waste of time for your campaign. All you're doing is forcing Microsoft to provide a better product. Yeah, that'll really help your cause.
we really need a "shameless" tag, but with microsoft I think that already goes without saying. They're not hiding in the shadows on this, they're grinning like a skunk eating manure.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
First, I believe Microsoft actually sponsored some work on the converter you link to. They aren't actually against a converter, they're just against one which works as simply and easily as saving OOXML docs.
.doc or .docx, choose to save as .rtf. In office suites other than Microsoft's, you can often change the default format.
.doc, open in OpenOffice. What would be a problem is if they had an official converter, that could be set as the default, that they had to develop by themself. And that will never happen.
In fact, I should say, they aren't so much against a converter as actually supporting the format, the way they do, say, RTF. You can, from the same Save dialog that lets you choose
A "converter" isn't really a threat to them. Hell, we have one already -- save as
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Seriously, what's the point of "yes, with comments"? I mean, if the standard is endorsed, what are the odds that the comments will be addressed?
It means the standard is workable but could be improved the way you noticed. Outside of Redmond, people engage in constructive criticism and mean mostly mean well.
The adversarial tone above is the worst damage that M$ has done to ISO. Standards are agreements meant to reduce duplication of work and friction between people, not a way to lock people into buying your crap. Real standards, like ODF are created by groups representing many interested parties. They are complete and easily implemented by others, and exceptions are always documented. OOXML, on the other hand, is incomplete, contradictory, patent protected and will remain single vendor. It's presentation was an affront. The gamesmenship was worse. If it that kind behavior is tollerated and encouraged, there will be no standards for anything. But this attack has been coming for ten years. As they put it themselves,
M$'s true intentions and use of standards is everything standards are supposed to avoid. This fact has been drug up in court several times.
ISO should punish those who took bribe as well as those who offered them. M$ should be banned from participation for a good long time or they will succeed in their destruction of real standards.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
Here is a U.S. supreme court decision holding that committee stuffing in standardization organizations is fundamentally different from lobbying.
From the decision: "Petitioner, and others concerned about the safety or competitive threat of polyvinyl chloride conduit, can, with full antitrust immunity, engage in concerted efforts to influence those governments through direct lobbying, publicity campaigns, and other traditional avenues of political expression. To the extent state and local governments are more difficult to persuade through these other avenues, that no doubt reflects their preference for and confidence in the nonpartisan consensus process that petitioner has undermined. Petitioner remains free to take advantage of the forum provided by the standard-setting process by presenting and vigorously arguing accurate scientific evidence before a nonpartisan private standard-setting body.[Footnote 13] And petitioner can avoid the strictures of the private standard-setting process by attempting to influence legislatures through other forums. What petitioner may not do (without exposing itself to possible antitrust liability for direct injuries) is bias the process by, as in this case, stacking the private standard-setting body with decisionmakers sharing their economic interest in restraining competition."
To not punish this kind of behavior would be to treat M$ more than fairly and everyone else less than fairly. M$ needs to be fined and banned from participation for a few years.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
If Microsoft wants OOXML to be a "standard" they should provide source code to read/render a file.
I don't see why the standards bodies haven't insisted on this from the beginning.
No sig today...
I doubt that most of Europe will vote 'yes'. The EU had many concerns about Microsoft and their market politics. But the guy who first told that for money you can`t buy anything is sleeping calmly in his coffin. If OOXML doesn`t become the standard XML format some chairs will fly at Microsoft and they will try a new tactic/format/FUD
my respect for and general goodwill toward the ISO process has been fairly well shaken. ... respect and admiration that I had for international standards bodies must now be earned.
That would be an unqualified win for M$, but we can do better than that by fixing the process. The corrections that have taken place in Sweeden, Norway and Hungary have started the process. The completion of that process is censoring OOXML, the tactics used and M$ itself. They have acted with malice and should be banned from participation.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=280723&cid=203 76215
Did anybody other then Microsoft have any input on this "standard"?
So what's the point of "yes, with comments"? It's not like Microsoft is going to make a single change to it.
No sig today...
Yes, maybe I'm being paranoid. Being paranoid doesn't mean that they're not out to get you!
+1 funny
Actually that particular form of corruption is not allowed by the rules (the comments have to be "technical reasons").
However there are other possible ways of corruption that are not disallowed by the rules. For example, in Switzerland, the relevant committee was chaired by H. R. Thomann, a consultant who earns money by representing business interests in standardization organizations. The rules of the Swiss standards organization did not require him to disclose whether he was getting paid by one of the interested companies. Thomann was appointed to this role by Sebestyen who besides his role in the Swiss dtandardization organization is also secretary-general of Ecma. For some more details about this conflict of interests, see SIUG's appeal.
Would it be too much to ask for a summary, rather than merely copying & pasting the linked article? Maybe mention what ODF and OOXML are, why we might NOT want the ISO to accept OOXML as a standard, things like that?
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
The real problem about it all is that the managers, who will or will not heed that "standard" don't even know how it came into existance. They don't care about open source or vendor lock in (hell, they love the lock in, they already have a minuscle grasp on Windows, they would do whatever necessary to avoid change, and if all that's required is doing nothing...). They don't care about implementation (that's gonna be YOUR job after all, they just waggle their fingers and cast a "make it so" spell on you).
They care about standardisation. You will not convince your boss with a lack of interoperability, but you will get him with telling him that in that new "standard", some of his fancy and oh-so-important feature-junk he tends to pepper his documents with won't work anymore.
If you want your boss to object to OOXML, find out what clipart trash won't work anymore. That's how you get him on your side.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
We fuck with the vote better than anyone!
(God, how I wish this was the fourth of July)
I've always felt that big companies love complex standards precisely because they are so difficult. They always seem to be designed lock out small competitors and allow the incumbents to control the market more effectively. OOXML is kind of like that, except that it seems primarily to lock the world into a standard that, almost by definition, only Microsoft can implement.
It seems to me that when companies need to cooperate, they find a way to do it by creating their own standards independent of standards bodies. By the same token, when companies want to make sure some new upstart doesn't get a foothold in the market, they go to an existing standards body that is pretty exclusionary to newcomers. And all this standard does is raise the cost of admission to competing in the document market.
You can't just write a word processor anymore in your basement with hard work and ingenuity; nope, you need a team of developers just to interpret the standard to read and write files.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Can't Open Office sue for trademark infringement? I think they ought to. And if someone is collecting money for such a suit, I'd like to know who so I can contribute.
"If there's anything Microsoft doesn't want, it's to get caught up in more antitrust lawsuits."
Well, the last round had no apparent impact on MS, so I'm guessing they no longer believe anti-trust to be an issue any longer. That threat left the station 7 years ago when the current administration took office.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Do you think that Slashdot's moronic "editors" understand the subjunctive? I think not.
So the future is looking bleak for OCXML (Office *Closed* XML) but what's with the claim about last month? This issue wasn't over a month ago so why the cryptic headline?
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=280723&cid=203 76215
This is no different than how MS subverted the IETF process in the early '90s. And not really fundamentally different than how MS subverted web standards to undermine Netscape.
ODF - A document format originally based on the Open Office file format. It spent four years going through the ISO process, being revised to comply with other ISO standards, and was released as a standard in 2006. The entire specification is a couple hundred pages long. Since then, an number of states in the US, and countries, have decided that all official documents must be saved in a standard format.
OOXML - Microsoft's format based on their Office Suite. It is about 6000 pages long.
A couple of my favorite reasons for not allowing OOXML to become a standard include:
1. 1900 is defined as a leap year because that's what MSOffice does.
2. The specification includes numerous definitions of tags like autoSpaceLikeWord95, which is defined as:
This element specifies that applications shall emulate the behavior of a previously existing word processing application (Microsoft Word 95) when determining the spacing between full-width East Asian characters in a document's content.
[Guidance: To faithfully replicate this behavior, applications must imitate the behavior of that application, which involves many possible behaviors and cannot be faithfully placed into narrative for this Office Open XML Standard. If applications wish to match this behavior, they must utilize and duplicate the output of those applications. It is recommended that applications not intentionally replicate this behavior as it was deprecated due to issues with its output, and is maintained only for compatibility with existing documents from that application. end guidance]
The "Standard" contains an erroneous date calculation, and won't tell you how to properly do something defined in the standard.
Recent stuff:
It seems that companies that never before bothered to show up for standards votes are magically showing up on the day of the OOXML vote, paying their dues, and voting. And we're not talking about a few. Suddenly, votes that would normally have ten to twenty companies show up all of the sudden have 20 new businesses. Also, there have been reports of companies that support Microsoft getting access to Microsoft technology they wouldn't otherwise have access to. Also, countries are supporting OOXML that never bothered with these votes.
BTW, have you been living under a rock? This story shows up almost as often as the BSD/GPL tussle.
Pursuant to this precedent, can Microsoft be hauled back into court for violating their anti-trust restrictions following their conviction if their clear violation happened outside of the U.S.? It is the same company though operating in another jurisdiction.
This deserves a higher rating than 3. I don't entirely agree with "unlimited liability", but you addressed the most obvious concern in a simple, logical way. There are other options as well, but they all boil down to incentivizing good behavior (which is not a new or strange concept -- just not applied to corporations nearly as rigorously as it is to individuals under US law).
There's nothing non-standard with the title as written for this story. Using were is more formal; not to imply that was in that context is informal.
Are you adequate?
However, it could be argued that these are (foreign) subisidiaries of Microsoft acting to help Microsoft (US) maintain their monopoly in the US. As such, because they are minions of a US corporation acting to protect a US monopoly, it might be appropriate to US antitrust action. (I am not a lawyer -- much less a judge).
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
n/t
I think part of the problem is that OpenOffice keeps referring to itself as OpenOfficeOrg, or OOO. If Microsoft's new standard were called OpenOfficeOrg XML, I think Sun would have a trademark case against Microsoft.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Since in most areas (not stuff like medical and such...), it isn't going to kill anyone, it is more efficient to push software out and find kinks as you go.
I don't think people are worried about the so-called "kinks" in OOXML as they are about the fact that it purports to be open, but because actual implementation by third parties is virtually impossible, it is not. The whole _point_ of a standard is promote interoperability. Microsoft product are the antithesis of interoperability. They always have been, and without significant leadership change, they always will be. History shows that they have done this absolutely intentionally as a way to promote MS hegemony.
I would submit that this kind of thinking _does_ cost lives. Your reference to medical applications is apt. How many lives have been lost on account of doctors being unable to quickly access, or access at all, patient information locked up in proprietary systems to which they have no access? I want my medical records saved in an open format. If I have a medical condition, and something happens to me, I want authorized individuals at the nearest hospital to have immediate and unrestricted access to any salient information. So I don't die.
I would like to note that those "unconfirmed" reports have been confirmed by many sources at this point, and that the list given is FAR too short. Something like 40+ countries have decided they want a voting ("P" level, rather than "O" level) membership in the ISO and this interest corresponds with Microsoft's "voter registration drive."
Never mind such a drive being inconsistent with US anti-trust law. A few anti-trust settlements are merely a cost of doing business these days, and the Iowa settlement is an aberration. Most of them have settled for far less, like the Arizona settlement where they got to give away software that would not only cost them pennies on the dollar (actually, probably less than pennies) but would help further their lock-in in the educational market.
Looks like Microsoft wants another long battle with people with this junk they are doing now - can anyone say ANTI-TRUST CASE?? They have been doing some major lobbing in the States and confusing the issues of the ODT format to the lawmakers. Almost making OOXML out to be ODF in the eyes of the States lawmakers.
This is lame for lawmakers to allow M$ or anyone for that matter to put the brakes on progress, innovation, creativity, thinking outside the box, paradigm's, and more. Information doesn't belong to individuals, companies, corporations or governments - or anyone. It belongs to everyone!
This is why technology and innovation is slow to grow anymore. All because big business is holding ideas and technology captive only to be used by them alone, or to get major royalties off someone develop further an idea or method.
I say the people need to slap M$ with Anti-Trust on this one.
Precisely. Since MS possesses the de-facto standard, making ISO irrelevant only strengthens MS Office monopoly.
Eric Raymond wrote in his blog, ( It not only bears repeating, but should be on the OUTSIDE OF EVERY COPY OF WINDOWS SOLD ):
"Because Microsoft's behavior in the last few months with respect to OOXML has been egregious. They haven't stopped at pushing a "standard" that is divisive, technically bogus, and an obvious tool of monopoly lock-in; they have resorted to lying, ballot-stuffing, committee-packing, and outright bribery to ram it through the ISO standardization process in ways that violate ISO's own guidelines wholesale."
Lying, bribery and violation of guidelines. Business as ususal for Microsoft, No?
By my count, there are now four announced Yes votes, with comments, two abstentions, and seven public No with comments votes for OOXML in ISO/IEC JT1.
There have been reports on far more votes. See this blog post for the current standings.
OS Reviews: Free and Open Source Software
So this time, MS has applied "Embrace, extend and extinguish" to the standard process itself.
There's a lot of smart, not-yet-bought people in ISO. I'm sure they already realized that unless they can fix this up, ISO will be done with. Its image has already very much suffered. That might even be intentional, for even if MS fails in pushing OOXML through, they might succeed in damaging ISO so much that ODF being an ISO standard and OOXML not doesn't matter as much as it used to.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
..is that we now know who can be corrupted and who can't be.
Look at the list. Rumania, Poland and the US. Fairly obvious partners?
Just to remind everyone, the Hungarian one was similar to Sweden.
A bunch of new voters registered, instead of the normal 10, the 55 were voting.
On the first vote, the General Director of the Standards body sent out the voting forms late, then changed the rules so that 50% majority was enough for a yes vote instead of normal 2/3rd majority.
He was ordered to redo the vote properly by the Hungarian Minister of Economy.
He did the vote again, but again he didn't follow the rules, sending the votes out himself. All very suspicious if you ask me. They should consider removing this man from his post if he can't follow the rules he's supposed to enforce.
You seem to be pretty hip to what the young people are saying these days - so I'll ask my stupid question of you:
What's the big deal?
I don't want see this pile of shite adopted any more than anyone else, but given that various government agencies are making reasonably independent and informed decisions about which standard to use, and that those same agencies seem to be all coming under a requirement to justify their use of commercial applications - which should be quite tricky with OOXML - OOXML seems to have a 'weaker sibling' future to it.
XSL will allow relatively painless migration between ODT and OOXML - and in these circumstances, where there are no real outside constraints, a survival of the fittest situation should result. And we both know which one that is.
As anyone working with governments will have to toe the same line, and so on and so forth, the spread to the business world should be reasonably limited - and while PHBs will insist on Word, the underlying storage, certainly in backup should be ODT. Half of those idiots will accept it also long as it has '.doc' on the end.
Also, in the past whenever Microsoft has come across a problem in a standard their automatic response has been to 'adapt' the standard - I would suggest that this is because they lack the skill to actually work with it, and so choose the easier option (for them). Once OOXML is set in stone, with this lack of ability in mind, they will suffer the most - and they will adapt the standard once again. Thereby rendering it useless.
The whole 'No, with comments' situation just says to me this rubbish will be back anyway with some minor adjustments and then we will have 'Yes, with comments' without the corrupt practices (although they are shocking in the extreme - and I hope that the words 'Abuse of a Dominant Position' are seen more often by Microsoft executives).
[I expect the first line of any response to be 'You stupid boy...']
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
Ireland has shamefully voted Yes with reservations ("qualified approval" recommending some small changes), with the National Standards Authority for Ireland (NSAI) hiding it behind an announcement entitled "NSAI PROVIDES QUALIFIED APPROVAL FOR MAJOR SOFTWARE STANDARD".
Mutilple technical specifications makes sense, "multiple standards" is an oxymoron.
See also Groklaw on the possibility of creating a single merged standard.
Wikileaks, no DNS
The one in which I said basically exactly what you just did -- that the "save as" isn't there to make it as easy as OOXML?
Or the statement where I said that "save as" is there and does work correctly -- for RTF?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
And some of the countries that approved don't even have the money to buy MS Office licenses to use that OOXML standard: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Congo, Cote d'Ivoir, Cuba, Jamaica, Kazakhstan, Lebanon, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Sri Lanka, Syria, Tanzania, Ukraine, Uzbekistan.
Can anyone explain me why those countries voted "yes" ? Take Cuba... MS is not allowed to sell licenses there due to the USA governement childish rules. And all those developing nations, they don't have money...
> You don't want source code -- especially if it's not well documented and well-written.
:-)
Yes, source code could be worse.
What they could do is require at least two independent implementations before accepting a standard - like the IETF does.
No sig today...
According to a site that is keeping very close track of things:
l e.php?story=2007090315253367
http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/artic
"Forecast: ISO Will Announce on Tuesday that OOXML Approval has Failed."
and more bad behaivour by Microsoft:
"In one case, that behavior led to the Swedish national vote being thrown out and replaced with an abstention, after it became apparent that one company voted more than once (Microsoft admitted that an employee had sent a memo urging business partners to join the National Body and vote to approve, and assuring them that their related fees would be offset by Microsoft marketing incentives)."
But *sshat New York Times, Kevin J. O'Brien:
"BERLIN, Sept. 3 -- Amid intense lobbying, Microsoft is expected to squeak out a victory this week to have its open document format..."
For anybody pround of being able to write complex specs, take a lesson from Microsoft. IBM bought printed copies of the ODF and OOXML specs to the Hungary meeting. One of the presents toke a picture. Can you guess with pile is the OOXML spec?
Rethinking email
Another odd date is "1900-01-00" (January 0, 1900 or December 31, 1899 -- but can only be formated in the former, not the more correct later). It represents the ordinal number 0, since the ordinal number 1 is for 1900-01-01.
Well that's strange, because there ARE multiple standards.
So I guess reality is an oxymoron.
OMG. Speechless.
When did you last see a scientific experiment documented using Imperial measurements?
I don't know why I bother replying to an obvious troll. I suppose that I don't like the smell of fresh FUD in the morning.
Wikileaks, no DNS