OOXML's 662 Resolutions

Rob Isn't Weird writes "Microsoft has finally responded to the resolutions concerning OOXML (or 662 of them at any rate). The only problem? The JTC1 NBs who are deciding OOXML's fate have to download 662 individual PDFs from a slow, password-protected server; and many have had trouble getting the password. Don't misunderstand the ECMA's intent, though: there would have been 662 OOXML files if they had wanted to make it hard for people to read and criticize the responses. Thanks to the Internet, other interested parties have put all 662 resolutions online in a searchable, taggable format and are requesting that everyone interested help examine them. That means you, Slashdot."

Comments

Open

[clarkn0va]

From Rob Weir's blog:

Yes, the comments and the resolutions to the comments are on two different web sites with two different passwords

Bravo. How proud then is Ecma of these 662 resolutions? Remember, kids, the "O" in OOXML stands for "Open".

db

Re:This means a lot...

[jkrise]

This means a lot...especially coming from a full-time salaried employee of International Business Machines,

So what? Don't you think an open dialogue between competitors is much better than shady backroom dealings that screw the customer?

who by cosmic coincidence recently released a product that uses ODF and competes (or tries to compete) Microsoft Office.

ODF was the first to be recognised as an ISO standard, it's MS that's trying to compete and catch up... and making a very bad attempt of it, besides.

I must've missed the memo that declared "evangelism" as the new corporate-sponsored FUD. But boy, it does feel wholesome.

If it's FUD, why not expose it by refuting any opinions in the article. Not every corporate-sponsored research is FUD... not every company is Microsoft! Maybe you are a full-time paid shill for them?

Re:Hrmph.

[mattbee]

Customer's ISP here - just loaning this chap's virtual machine some more memory to deal with the hoardes. Ah there, it's back up again and using no swap, hooray. Apache might be hitting its MaxClients limit as well, I'll keep an eye on it :)

...It kind of does.

[SanityInAnarchy]

Sometimes, you don't have to consider the source.

2+2 is always 4. You may disagree with everything I stand for; you may think I represent evil incarnate, or that I'm just lazy hippie scum; but if I say "2+2=4", you kind of have to agree with me.

So, unless you're actually going to dispute the fact that:

• There are 662 separate PDFs
• The comments and the resolutions to the comments are on completely separate pages
• The whole thing is password-protected

Unless there's something factually wrong with that, pretty much anyone can independently figure out that the process sucks giant donkey balls.