Promise of OOXML Oversight By ISO Falls Through

640 Comments Are Enough for Anyone writes "Microsoft is going back on one of their promises concerning OOXML. While they originally made assurances that the ISO would take control of the standard if it were approved, Microsoft is now reversing that position and keeping near-full control over OOXML with the ECMA. This is significant because the ECMA is the group that originally rubber-stamped OOXML. It seems unlikely that they will force changes to correct problems with the standard. In Microsoft's new plan, the ISO would only be allowed to publish lists of errata and would be unable to make OOXML compatible with existing ISO standards, while the ECMA would be the one to control any new versions of the standard."

Comments

EMCA?

[Anonymous Coward]

ECMA.

Re:EMCA?

[Anonymous Coward]

Either one just as long as it's not the YMCA

Re:EMCA?

[waztub]

Actually, it's E=MC^2

Re:EMCA?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, no, no, they got it right. EMCA, the ECMAs evil twin sister.

Isn't it 'ECMA'?

[!ramirez]

...not EMCA?

Re:Isn't it 'ECMA'?

[Tetsujin]

...not EMCA? But it's fun to stae and the EMCA...

Re:Isn't it 'ECMA'?

[JavaBear]

I thought ECMA was pronounced ACME...

Re:Isn't it 'ECMA'?

[Anonymous Coward]

Would have been funnier if you didn't typo/screw up ONE FOURTH of the freaking words. . .

Re:Isn't it 'ECMA'?

[brunascle]

this happens so often that even Wikipedia's entry for EMCA redirects to ECMA.

Re:Isn't it 'ECMA'?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps ACME is more appropriate? "...famous for outlandish and downright dangerous products that failed catastrophically at the worst possible times." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acme_Corporation/

Re:Isn't it 'ECMA'?

[Kavli]

Sure it's not YMCA?

Re:Isn't it 'ECMA'?

[syousef]

Let's go the medly

We want you...
We want you...
We want you...Locked into VISTA and Office too

Re:Isn't it 'ECMA'?

[SanityInAnarchy]

Ecma, not ECMA. So yes, it's called EcmaScript.

Re:Isn't it 'ECMA'?

[jkrise]

It was the ECMA earlier.... maybe after the OOXML fiasco, it became EMCA.... Embrace Microsoft & Corrupted Association... :-)

Re:Isn't it 'ECMA'?

[o_miljac]

or YMCA?

Re:Isn't it 'ECMA'?

[kkiller]

........ Woooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh! Please try again.

Re:Isn't it 'ECMA'?

[75th Trombone]

Well, he did screw up "at". That makes it a little less funny. (Unless there's a further part of the joke I don't get either.)

Re:Isn't it 'ECMA'?

[Anonymous Coward]

since they support OOXML they could just be ACME

Re:Isn't it 'ECMA'?

[HeroreV]

The name of the organization is "Ecma International" and has been since 1994. The untrademarked name for JavaScript is "ECMAScript".

Everyone surprised by this

[overshoot]

... please hold up your hands.

Re:Everyone surprised by this

[dwywit]

Who'da thunk it?

Re:Everyone surprised by this

[Gideon Fubar]

I am. I thought they'd at least wait until they had the 'standard' approved (pushed/bribed through) ISO.. This is almost like them being honest..

Re:Everyone surprised by this

[man_of_mr_e]

Nobody should be surprised by this, much less Rob Weir. He feigns surprise and acts like this is a shocking development.

Here's news for you, and Rob, and everyone else. *NO FAST TRACK ISO STANDARD IS OWNED BY ISO*. Fast tracking, by it's very design, puts the onus on standards maintenance and evolution on the standards body that submits it.

Rob knows this, but he's being deliberately disingenuous.

By the way, the same is true for ODF. OASIS is the steward for current ODF maintenance and improvement.

Re:Everyone surprised by this

[daem0n1x]

Guys, instead of holding up your hands, start calling your national standard bodies and bug them as most as you can with embarrassing questions. Lobby your congressmen. Lobby your EU Parliament representatives. Lobby your government, president, king, emperor, sultan, dictator, tsar, wharever. Talk to the media. Many of you should have academic connections. Lobby them too.

This outrageous corruption won't stand if it's exposed in public. All this secrecy will only work on MS favor.

Call your country's delegation and ask them why they allow to become Microsoft puppets:
http://www.noooxml.org/brm

And why not?

[gcnaddict]

If it was approved right off the bat, the ISO would've had control. Microsoft is a business. They can make concessions when need be, but when they don't think they'll be able to capture something they need, they won't have any problems imposing restrictions that make business sense.

Re:And why not?

[SpryGuy]

Too bad they don't seem to have any interest in taking the many valid criticisms and critiques and suggestions and incorporating them and fixing up the serious issues that abound with their proprietary spec.

Re:And why not?

[erroneus]

Are you suggesting that ISO should have granted them ISO recognition in spite of the fact that OOXML is vaguely defined at best?

Anything Microsoft puts out is a moving target when it comes to being compatible or interoperable. Samba may be an exception, but only because Samba was relentless in keeping up with the changes and Microsoft seems to have run out of wriggle room in messing around with the standard while maintaining compatibility with their own software.

OOXML is simply unworthy. Microsoft is simply untrustworthy. Microsoft's behavior is quite consistent in this respect. Story after story is available illustrating "partnerships" formed only to have Microsoft turn on these partners when it suits them. They are more than a business. They are predatory, dishonest and untrustworthy. They epitomize everything that's wrong with contemporary business.

Re:And why not?

[jamstar7]

Too bad they don't seem to have any interest in taking the many valid criticisms and critiques and suggestions and incorporating them and fixing up the serious issues that abound with their proprietary spec.

There's a technical term for this. It's called 'Not Invented Here Sysndrome'. If they can't totally control it, they're just not interested in it.

Nothing to see here, just bizz as usual, move along, move along...

Re:And why not?

[blind biker]

I know what you meant, but I need to say this to protect the innocent: Samba is NOT a Microsoft product. Samba is an open-source implementation of some Microsoft file sharing and authentication ... "protocols" (my fingers can't even type that). As far as I know, most of what the Samba team did had to be reverse-engineered. That is, Samba exists _in spite_ of Microsoft, not thanks to it.

Re:And why not?

[tomatensaft]

only to have Microsoft turn on these partners when it sues them

Re:And why not?

[MickDownUnder]

I think saying OpenXML is "defined vaguely at best" is pretty extreme and unfair (even for slashdot).

The criticism you're talking about is NOT as you allude to in your comment being levelled at the entire specification. The criticism is levelled at a few points within the spec which are in fact OPTIONAL for software implementors of OpenXML readers and writers. Whats more these constructs are actually specifically PROHIBITED from being used in new documents. The only reason why they are included at all is to enable specific types of legacy MS Office (e.g Japanese word 98 docs) documents to be expressed in the OpenXML format.

I think the real issue is not that Microsoft employees are all satanic, it is that when you work at Microsoft you must deal with legacy issues. They can't create a new file spec for office in which it is impossible to express documents created with legacy versions of office. OpenXML has been defined to allow legacy documents (dating back to the 90's) to be converted to the new format. Dealing with backwards compatibility with software created in the 90's is simply not possible to trivialise.

True proponents of open standards should actually be rejoicing OpenXML as it is actually very easy to implement the compulsory (non-legacy) components of the standard. Should MS have success with OpenXML the majority of the corporate world documents will eventually be transformed to OpenXML, which means these documents will be in a highly accessible easy to interpret format. Do you think anyone could possibly use simple tools (like a text editor and zip archiver) to create office documents by hand that can be opened by Office before OpenXML? Or be able to open a word document using a zip archiver, extract and edit parts of the document using a text editor? Surely this has to be a giant step forward?

Re:And why not?

[Daengbo]

That doesn't change the fact that legacy documents which will be converted into OOXML for "compatability's sake" will not be accurately read by the software which believed "it is actually very easy to implement the compulsory (non-legacy) components of the standard" and only implemented those parts. Make no mistake -- If OOXML is accepted as a standard, millions of legacy documents will be converted by governments and come online in a form only really readable by MS, and the governments will believe otherwise, trusting in the standard.

Re:And why not?

[erroneus]

A standard should have nothing to do with anything that came before it. Every bit of the format specification should be clearly and precisely defined. Backward compatibility with older stuff is a concern only for the implementer. If OpenOffice should implement OOXML, backward compatibility is not their concern. Only accurate and complete implementation of the standard.

It seems to me, you're confusing OOXML and Microsoft Word as being one and the same. That could be the only reason you would think backward compatibility would be an issue in defining a standard.

But you know, there's more wrong with the proposed OOXML standard than vague references to other programs' behaviors. There's the fact that many format guidelines go against existing ISO standards as well. They aren't supposed to conflict. Think of it this way: The world had been using the "/" character since the beginning in file path lists. Microsoft for some inexplicable reason decided to use "\". WHY?!

And let's also look at Microsoft's approach to existing standards. They accept it and then change it. Why?! It's a standard. They have done this countless times and persist in doing so. It's not that they "can't" get it right. It's that they won't. I'm assuming you know what I refer to, but in case you need a more popular list: HTML & CSS, Kerberos, Java... pretty much everyone knows about these, but there are more.

Re:And why not?

[codemachine]

Why would legacy binary formats be a part of any "standard"? Wouldn't parsing those formats be a job for the filter that does the conversion?

The fact that the legacy junk is in there shows that the format wasn't built with the intention of creating a shared standard. It was simply the next file format for MS Office. It has only been submitted for standardization for political reasons.

Re:And why not?

[Somebody Is Using My]

Think of it this way: The world had been using the "/" character since the beginning in file path lists. Microsoft for some inexplicable reason decided to use "\". WHY?!

Useless trivia time (and probably old news to most people here)

Why did Microsoft use the "\" for a path-separator instead of "/" like Unix?

Because when Microsoft wrote (bought/stole) MS DOS 1.0, they wrote it for IBM. IBM already was using the "/" character as the switch for their utilities (not surprising, since the "/" was a commonly used switch character in CP/M, and MS DOS was a CP/M clone) so it couldn't also be used as a path separator. Of course, at the time it really didn't matter since MS DOS v1.0 didn't support directories. But they did have write into their shell that "/" was the switch character.

Of course, when Microsoft added directory support to MS DOS 2.0, they needed to add a path separator. Since they wanted to maintain backwards compatibility with the old IBM utilities, using the "/" character was already being used. So they decided to go with the next best thing: the "\" character.

So, like many Microsoft idiosyncrasies, this one too can be blamed on maintaining backwards compatibility. In any event, most versions of DOS will allow you to use the UNIX path separator "/" ; it will just interpret it as a "\".

Re:And why not?

[MickDownUnder]

What relevance does a document standard have to an organisation that cannot convert all it's documents to it?

I think the difference you speak of is really one between academic and real business needs. Microsoft is not going to support a standard that leaves some of their customers no migration path and they're definitely not going to be interested in achieving academic ideals at the expense of business objectives.

As for differences between Microsoft and everyone else, what the differences about everyone else and everyone else?
There are always differences, just look at every flavour of linux and the variations between console commands/scripting.

I think this is more about picking on Microsoft than any real valid technical argument.

Re:And why not?

[arendjr]

What relevance does a document standard have to an organisation that cannot convert all it's documents to it?

That's a non-issue. The document standard does not need to have any legacy options, as long as the converter understands the legacy documents and can convert them to the new standard. At this point it makes a lot more sense to make the document standard flexible enough so that it can represent all old documents natively, without putting all kinds of deprecated hacks into the new standard.

Re:And why not?

[MickDownUnder]

Maybe you should go work for Microsoft, seeing as creating an XML schema for a document that can describe the layout, formatting and content of 4 different versions of Office for 35 different languages seems like such a trivial task for you... either that or make break throughs in quantum mechanics or string theory... seems like a waste of your talents to be putting energy into discussions with moronic slashdot users.

I long for the day when...

[GeneralEmergency]

...I can read one of these stories and think,

  "Microsoft?? Are they *still* in business?"

Oh well. One can dream.

Re:I long for the day when...

[Rick17JJ]

Apparently, you aren't the only one who didn't realize that Microsoft was still in business. Here is a woman in the local bookstore, who has never heard of Microsoft:

A local sales clerk who has never heard of Microsoft

Oops, I think I must have just accidentally wandered into a parallel universe where history is slightly different.

Re:I long for the day when...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hur hur hur *snort*

I bet that took OVER 9000 hours in MSPaint

Re:I long for the day when...

[downix]

It has happened before, where the 800 lbs Gorilla in the room passed on.

Remember Commodore, the guys behind the Commodore 64, Amiga, and made the CPU in almost EVERY PC for almost 10 years?

Lemme get this straight...

[Eggplant62]

Microsoft was running circles around itself in an effort to get this monstrosity known as Office XML specification (note the absence of "Open," since it is my belief there is nothing "open" about it) just 4 months ago, loading standards panel with shills for the voting process, and now they're thumbing their noses at another standards body over the same specification?

Way to go, Microsoft! Another shot to the foot. Keep shooting and maybe we can take out a knee next, eh?

Re:Lemme get this straight...

[Citizen of Earth]

Office XML specification (note the absence of "Open,"

I think the proper name that every knowledgeable should use for it is "Microsoft Office XML (MSOXML)", because this is exactly what it is.

As for Microsoft shooting itself in the foot, I don't think it matters. I predict that MSOXML will be approved at the next ISO meeting because ISO is a fundamentally corrupt organization. It is fundamentally corrupt because it allows every country in the world to have the same voting weight, and the majority of countries in the world are fundamentally corrupt (and easily bribed by Microsoft). Voting must be weighted in some counter-bullshit-country way to avoid this problem. I think a good way to accomplish this is to weigh the votes by country GDP.

Re:Lemme get this straight...

[Eggplant62]

Yes, but how accepting is the development community going to be with it? We see that it's a proprietary product that is not going to be fully interoperable except on Monopoly-approved products. We do have a choice, and that choice may just be shunning it for our own personal and business use unless absolutely necessary. Y'know, hit 'em in the pocketbook.

Re:Lemme get this straight...

[Anonymous Coward]

WHAT!!! so basically give the power to the rich who are uncorupta....NVM....
its not like france and africa are actually where microsoft are loosing ground while england and america stay strong and bend over for bill
O WAIT IT IS

Re:Lemme get this straight...

[zippthorne]

They're putting it through so they can satisfy laws in places like Massachusetts which require (or are going to require, maybe?) open standards for government documents. If they sneak in a not-really-open standard as an open one, the letter of the law in such states would be satisfied by going with Microsoft, and other bidding laws then take over. "Fair" bidding laws which Microsoft can manipulate for favorable results.

"It's not really an open standard" is going to be a pretty poor legal position if they've got the ISO stamp of approval.

Re:Lemme get this straight...

[pallmall1]

...while england and america stay strong and bend over for bill

That's Sir Bill to you.

Re:Lemme get this straight...

[Anonymous Coward]

RYOFA.

"As an American citizen he cannot use the title "Sir" but will be entitled to put the letters KBE after his name."

Re:Lemme get this straight...

[linebackn]

I think the proper name that every knowledgeable should use for it is "Microsoft Office XML (MSOXML)".

Ask anyone who is NOT knowledgeable and what do they call it? "Microsoft Office 2007 format". And what does it work with? "Microsoft Office 2007". THAT is what it is. Even the Blow Joe's of with world know it's Microsoft propitiatory Office 2007 format and nothing more.

Re:Lemme get this straight...

[Frosty Piss]

I think the proper name that every knowledgeable should use for it is "Microsoft Office XML (MSOXML)", because this is exactly what it is.

MSOXML? Isn't that a male baldness pharmaceutical?

Re:Lemme get this straight...

[VGPowerlord]

No, they're thumbing their nose at the same standards body over the same specification. Which is stupid for a company trying to garner votes for said standards body.

Speaking of which, does anyone know if the shills have been booted from the committee yet? I seem to recall seeing a bylaw that lets the committee chair remove inactive members, such as those who gained P status to vote for Microsoft, then never voted again.

Re:Lemme get this straight...

[thirdrock68]

It is fundamentally corrupt because it allows every country in the world to have the same voting weight, and the majority of countries in the world are fundamentally corrupt (and easily bribed by Microsoft). Voting must be weighted in some counter-bullshit-country way to avoid this problem. I think a good way to accomplish this is to weigh the votes by country GDP.

The only problem with your suggested solution is that the country with the highest GDP has one of the most corrupt governments in the developed world.

Re:Lemme get this straight...

[WK2]

Office XML specification (note the absence of "Open")

It isn't XML either.

Re:Lemme get this straight...

[hixie]

Aw but if you remove the "Open" in "Office Open" how are they supposed to confuse people who ask about "Open Office"?

Re:Lemme get this straight...

[Citizen of Earth]

one of the most corrupt governments in the developed world

The most corrupt government in the first world is orders of magnitude less corrupt than the lest corrupt government in the third world. I realize that it's fashionable to poo-poo the US, but you're ignoring the source of the MSOXML problem—idiots pretending that bullshit third-world "countries" aren't bullshit. (Actually, this causes quite a lot of other problems, too.)

Re:Lemme get this straight...

[Anonymous Coward]

You put the lime in the coconut.. ...and call me in the morning!

Re:Lemme get this straight...

[jkrise]

Ask anyone who is NOT knowledgeable and what do they call it? "Microsoft Office 2007 format". And what does it work with? "Microsoft Office 2007". THAT is what it is. Even the Blow Joe's of with world know it's Microsoft propitiatory Office 2007 format and nothing more.

You are so correct. Which is why, Alan Bell's suggested name change in one of the 600-odd resolutions becomes very meaningful. He suggests renaming the standard as "Legacy Data Formats Represented in XML". I would add a 'partially' or 'confusingly' before Represented to make things even more clear to the Average Joe.

****
"US - 270

Naming DIS 29500: The current name of DIS 29500, Office Open XML is seriously misleading in several respects. First, it is not a document format based on XML but rather an XML representation of a legacy document format with particular processing semantics. Second, reference should not be made to commercial products and clearly "Office" in the title of this proposal is meant as a reference to Microsoft Office. Lastly, the proposal is no more or less open than any other ISO proposal and so "Open" is meaningless in this context.

It is suggested that a new name be chosen for the proposal that reflects its goal of representing and continuing a legacy document format as represented in XML. Such a name should not carry an implied reference to a Microsoft product nor should it use the term "open." One possible name would be: Legacy Document Formats Represented in XML. The principles developed from this effort might well prove effective for other legacy document formats that should be represented in XML.

DIS 29500"
****

Re:Lemme get this straight...

[Anonymous Coward]

its not like france and africa are actually where microsoft are loosing ground while england and america stay strong and bend over for the bills Fixed that.

Re:Lemme get this straight...

[Frantactical Fruke]

Mind, since the USA is fundamentally corrupt when it comes to legislation concerning businesses (cf. DMCA), in whose favor would you weight the ISO then? Sweden has been repeatedly certified as one of the least corrupt countries on Earth, but even their standards body was overrun by MS, as was Finland's, another top contender in normal accountability stakes.

Standards bodies have been set up by businesses for businesses, with no democratic ideals involved, except where it doesn't matter. There is a tiny window of opportunity called "little or no installed base" that allows negotiations to be guided by technical excellence alone. This was never going to work with the MS Word format. If they had submitted MSOOXML in time to have it polished to perfection, there would have been competing products (gasp!) on the market in no time.

Re:Lemme get this straight...

[Bert64]

Yes, but let's not forget that MS is also multiple sclerosis, a highly unpleasant illness:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_sclerosis

Re:Lemme get this straight...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's that Massachusetts require the word "Open" in their government software.

Don't be surprised if you'll see "Microsoft - Vista Open Premuim" and
"Microsoft - SQL Open Server 2008" in the near future. The same closed software
but with a new catchy name...

(hmm, the captcha word I have to enter to submit this is "disagree". Is /. trying to tell me something?)

- Peder

Re:Lemme get this straight...

[Citizen of Earth]

Mind, since the USA is fundamentally corrupt

I realize it's fashionable to poo-poo the US, but this is not the sense in which I meant "fundamentally". No first-world democracy is fundamentally corrupt. You could make a strong argument that India, a democracy on paper, is fundamentally corrupt.

but even their standards body was overrun by MS

The first-world democracies need to get their shit together to prevent this kind of fraud from happening again. In the third world, there is no hope that this can happen.

Standards bodies have been set up by businesses for businesses

That's not a particular problem here. The situation was that one large company wanted MSOXML passed and about a dozen opposed it. The vote should have been 12-1 against. Companies themselves could have their votes weighted by something like gross revenue in the relevant industry. Microsoft's shills would get little weight.

Re:Lemme get this straight...

[plague3106]

Well, anyone NOT knowledgeable doesn't know what TCP/IP is either, nor do they know how to press CTRL-P. Who cares what someone that doesn't know thinks?

Re:Lemme get this straight...

[emilv]

... China?

Re:Lemme get this straight...

[Frantactical Fruke]

I said "when it comes to business related legislation". In the USA, businesses get the best legislation money can buy regardless of the citizens' interests (calling them mere consumers is demeaning). That's not "poo-pooing" the US in general. If you start crying "Anti-American!" every time someone utters a word of doubt, your democracy is dead.
Like I said, governments have no say in these standards bodies, so the "first world democracies" simply can't get their "shit together". It's none of their business.
Businesses are fundamentally undemocratic organisations, so it is no surprise that any quasi-democratic body they set up is dysfunctional. The minute a manager starts acting for the common good where it opposes his company's interests, he gets fired. Imagine a democracy run by 100 % sociopaths. Herding cats is easier.
This means that situations like the present one will crop up inevitably.

Re:Lemme get this straight...

[o2sd]

I realize that it's fashionable to poo-poo the US, but you're ignoring the source of the MSOXML problem--idiots pretending that bullshit third-world "countries" aren't bullshit. (Actually, this causes quite a lot of other problems, too.)

So Microsoft isn't a US company right? They must have started in bullshit Bolivia. Because no US company would corrupt third world governments with bribes and favours to vote their way.

Corruption always has two parties, the corrupter and the corrupted. You say the corrupted is the problem, I say the corrupter is the problem.

Yes...

[Anonymous Coward]

But thanks to the DMCA (and to a lesser extent, the YMCA), I always type it backwards :(

This is a surprise?

[hyades1]

Anyone who expects Microsoft to keep its word on a matter like this is possessed of a level of ingenuousness approached only by two-year-olds, puppies and sociology professors.

Re:This is a surprise?

[calebt3]

Notice how no Sociology professors seem to be protesting your comment...

Re:This is a surprise?

[Anonymous Coward]

You haven't spent much time around ACTUAL two-year olds, have you? They are WAY smarter than most sociology professors. I think you do a disservice to two-year olds, sir.

Re:This is a surprise?

[Anonymous Coward]

I see you've taken my class.

Re:This is a surprise?

[BlueParrot]

Yea, even the chimps remember Microsoft ...

FFS

[Brian Lewis]

This is bullshit.

I'm tired of this Microsoft monopoly crap. Why the hell doesn't anyone stop this crap from happening.

Re:FFS

[Dunbal]

Why the hell doesn't anyone stop this crap from happening.

      They do, but Microsoft either a) ignores the ruling and throws money and lawyers at the courts to get an appeal and/or b) doesn't pay the fines/make the required changes. So until someone gets the balls to arrest the board of directors and throw them in jail for contempt, it's business as usual.

Re:FFS

[davidsyes]

Goddammit, WHEN can we have a "Highlander" who would slash and slay mshaft ONCE AND FOR ALL?

Re:FFS

[Anonymous Coward]

The balls are no problem here. Does anyone have a jail I can borrow for a few decades? It needs to be set up with a podium, fake/broken microphone, no chairs, and must have enough room for a fat sweaty monkey to run around screaming.

Wow

[rastoboy29]

I can't believe they backed out of letting someone else run their format.

Cuz,  you know, that's what it is--theirs.  Not ours.  Kinda their point, really.

Re:Wow

[moranar]

Hey, it wasn't us who pushed them into presenting said format as an _open_standard_. Kinda... not theirs. Nobody forced them to push it to ECMA or ISO.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Then don't claim it's "open", baby!

Standard?

[MeNeXT]

OOXML is not standard anything. It's a proprietary format owned by Microsoft. Why do people refer to this as standard?

Re:Standard?

[Creepy Crawler]

Cause it SOUNDS like OpenOffice XML.

OO = Open Office
OOXML =! Open Office XML

Re:Standard?

[Anonymous Coward]

=! != !=

Re:Standard?

[Hangly Man]

It's a proprietary standard.

Re:Standard?

[Creepy Crawler]

:0

Re:Standard?

[MeNeXT]

For you sir I have some land that you could buy. You will not own it. I will not transfer the deed buy you may buy it. I'll let you set the price.

Re:Standard?

[Hangly Man]

Ah, must be Chinese real estate.

Re:Standard?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cause it SOUNDS like OpenOffice XML.

Really? To me it sounds like "Ooks mull"

Re:Standard?

[JonathanR]

Yeah, you download it from your sequel server.

Re:Standard?

[JonathanR]

I'm surprised that the OpenOffice.org Community Council hasn't taken steps to protect their trademark.

Re:Standard?

[RealGrouchy]

OpenOffice.org is called OpenOffice.org and not simply OpenOffice is because OpenOffice is already trademarked by somebody else.

Thus, none of OOo's trademarks are being even remotely infringed by this.

- RG>

Re:Standard?

[Bert64]

What is this sequel you speak of? Can i watch it on my doovde player?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjH9cEoEup8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmyU7T1Rc1s

http://www.ev4.org/wordpress/2007/10/18/sql-is-not-pronounced-sequel-where-the-hell-did-those-vowells-come-from/

Re:Standard?

[Anonymous Coward]

=! != !=

-
AnotherAnonymousCoward

Re:Standard?

[Ant P.]

true;
but: =! == (= !) // which is probably the effect they were going for.

Zonk, you moron

[jjohnson]

It's ECMA, not EMCA. Christ, do you even read the summaries before you hit 'approve'?

Re:Zonk, you moron

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

For those of us with dyslexia, proof erading doest'n always hepl.

Re:Zonk, you moron

[terraformer]

It is actually Ecma. Ecma no longer stands for European Computer Manufacturers Association. It is just plain ol' Ecma International now.

Re:Zonk, you moron

[ameline]

No, it stands for Exceptionally Corrupt Microsoft Apologists. Didn't you get the memo?

Re:Zonk, you moron

[VGPowerlord]

I didn't get the memo, but they proved that through their actions.

Re:Just ask Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh-oh! Looks like someone just got their very first goatse!

(p.s. it's probably not his anus, but the anus of someone else)

Evil

[ktappe]

The next time anyone defends anything Microsoft at all and calls me a "fanboi" for using Apple products instead.......

Re:Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are going to feed the trolls, then you both can have a big serving of STFU for dessert.

Re:Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

You're kidding, right?

As much as I hate to admit this, Microsoft is much more "open" than Apple ever was... fanboi!

Why do acronyms ending in A suck these days?

[Deliveranc3]

RIAA,MPAA,CIA, NSA, USA. NBA...

Well that last one's allright if you're drunk enough.

Re:Why do acronyms ending in A suck these days?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're forgetting one:

The DEA.

Re:Why do acronyms ending in A suck these days?

[Neanderthal Ninny]

Acronyms: The result of after eating alphabet soup and then throwing up.

Re:Why do acronyms ending in A suck these days?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well that last one's allright if you're drunk enough.

...just like URMOMMA.

Canadian?

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Maybe they get started in Canada, eh?

Re:Canadian?

[Penguinisto]

Maybe they get started in Canada, eh?

Oh, you mean in CA... (yeah, yeah: "eh?")

/P

ugh I say, as an Ecma member

[terraformer]

...but unfortunately not a voting member this kills me. There is a good deal of excellent work done there but this will be a blight that will be a long time in removing.

Re:ugh I say, as an Ecma member

[Citizen of Earth]

There is a good deal of excellent work done there but this will be a blight that will be a long time in removing.

What is this excellent work? ECMA's Wikipedia page is just a laundry list of rubber-stamped Microsoft products.

Re:ugh I say, as an Ecma member

[terraformer]

Yeah, and a wiki is the authoritative end all-be all of information. See here http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/index.html

Re:ugh I say, as an Ecma member

[davidsyes]

Sounds like with all that ms exzema, ECMA will need...

"Blue Star Ointment! Stops ringworm, tether, psoriasis... STOPS ITCHING FAST. Blue Star Ointment!"

Re:ugh I say, as an Ecma member

[SanityInAnarchy]

EcmaScript, for one.

Rubber stamp? Maybe. Microsoft? Hardly, although they do tend to be the only ones who call it EcmaScript, instead of, say, JavaScript.

Re:ugh I say, as an Ecma member

[Anonymous Coward]

EcmaScript is the syntax... JavaScript is Ecmascript + W3C DOM

Re:ugh I say, as an Ecma member

[Anonymous Coward]

Hardly, although they do tend to be the only ones who call it EcmaScript, instead of, say, JavaScript.

I imagine paying Sun for the right to do that isn't high on their list of objectives.

Re:ugh I say, as an Ecma member

[SanityInAnarchy]

Except it's still generally called JavaScript no matter where it is -- things like a standalone SpiderMonkey, for instance.

Also, it's generally called EcmaScript on HD-DVD, even though there's decent DOM2 support. (Extended, of course, but given Microsoft's investment in the format, unlikely to be extinguished.)

Re:ugh I say, as an Ecma member

[SanityInAnarchy]

Oh, I know. What's significant about this isn't that Microsoft calls it EcmaScript -- they have to -- but that no one else does, even when you'd think they have to.

Ecma == MS

[recharged95]

isn't Ecma the steward of all the current Microsoft open standards? So far the only Ecma standard that isn't Microsoft referenced is Universal3D (which is more Adobe related). The again, U3D should have given way to X3D and VRML...This Going with Ecma make sense, they need something to battle ANSI and ISO.

Re:Ecma == MS

[Anonymous Coward]

Serious query: can someone utter one good reason in defense of this ECMA entity as a standard body? Any redeeming value to it or is it just bogus clowns?

Re:Ecma == MS

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, apparently ECMA do other things:

http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Standard.htm

So... there is a standard, and there is a standard, and there...

Re:Ecma == MS

[Anonymous Coward]

It is plain wrong to say that all ECMA's specifications are from MS.
At least you could get a look at their web site.
They published crap for way more companies than you think. Anything is good as long as they pay.

WARNING: Unsafe Link

[sethstorm]

Link is just another shocksite redirect similar to other articles.

Re:WARNING: Unsafe Link

[BasilBrush]

What are you talking about? It's a link to Groklaw.

Re:WARNING: Unsafe Link

[BasilBrush]

Forget I asked, you were responding to some -1 troll, not the article link. I wouldn't bother responding at all if I were you, he's invisible to most people, you're only drawing attention to him, which is what he wants. Just mod down when you have mod points.

Mod parent down

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no reason to use that short of being a shock site.

Better Idea

[pete-classic]

Everyone surprised by this, please hold up your unicorn!

-Peter

Re:Better Idea

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

My unicorn is out back, eating glitter... Terrible. She farts rainbows for a couple days afterwards.

Re:Just ask Google

[Anonymous Coward]

seriously, the nature of photo editing applied to the goatse shot is considered informative? jesus h. christ, the trolls have won.

Listen Buddy

[explosivejared]

Listen Buddy! Microsoft ran out of feet to shoot around the time the first of the browsers were over, ok! Since then they learned the power of perpetual levitation from the emperor (aka Sidious)! So please the next time you want to rant about MS shooting their own foot , please check the facts!

P.S. Just to pre-empt any smart remarks about shooting themselves in the head, they are impervious to it since just before the start of programming win2000 their brains were replaced with a singularity that destroys everything in its path!

Is any rational person surprised?

[bogaboga]

I wonder whether any informed person is surprised by Microsoft's move. On a more serious note I get really pissed of by respectable members of the Open Source community who these days, trust Microsoft.

Guys, let's wait for Microsoft's SilverLight platform. I can guarantee that there will be more controversy on that front, and again, some members of the OSS community will quickly join the band wagon.

Everybody now!

[Keyper7]

It's fun to stay with the E-M-C-A
It's fun to stay with the E-M-C-A...

My brain parsed that as 'eczema'. . .

[mmell]

A dry, irritating condition . . .

so I wasn't that far off-base!

Alternative names suggestions

[Spy der Mann]

I think the proper name that every knowledgeable should use for it is "Microsoft Office XML (MSOXML)", because this is exactly what it is.

Other suggestions:

* MOOXML (Microsoft Office Obnoxious XML - forgot where I found that one)
* BOOXML (Ballmer Oriented Office XML)
* POOXML (Prehistoric Objects Office XML)
* SUCKXML (Steve's Universally Condemned, Killed XML)

Cast your votes!

Re:Alternative names suggestions

[jkrise]

* MOOXML (Microsoft Office Obnoxious XML - forgot where I found that one)
* BOOXML (Ballmer Oriented Office XML)
* POOXML (Prehistoric Objects Office XML)
* SUCKXML (Steve's Universally Condemned, Killed XML)

You forgot:
* WTFXML (Windows' Treacherous Format as XML)

That would get everybody's vote... because it conveys the beauty of this format in a way everyone understands!

Re:Just ask Google

[Dunbal]

lol wut - welcome to the internets. Now someone show him tubgirl...

What effect will the ISO actually have?

[zorkerz]

Here is a question that I am not entirely sure about. Suppose Microsoft's open XML format does not get passed by the ISO as it very obviously should not. What effect with this have? Is .doc an ISO standard? Assuming that Microsoft does not add support in its office suite for the current ISO standard ODF. How many people will actually use ODF if the majority have software that cannot read odf files out of the box? Who will use odf? Who does now?

Re:What effect will the ISO actually have?

[Rhapsody Scarlet]

Here is a question that I am not entirely sure about. Suppose Microsoft's open XML format does not get passed by the ISO as it very obviously should not. What effect with this have?

Seeing as Microsoft have been pushing hard for ISO to make OOXML an official standard, even going so far as to outright bribe people, I'd say they have a reason. I think that reason is because people are starting to wake up to the fact that open standards are very good for them, and are wanting to switch. Microsoft now desperately want ISO approval so they can point to OOXML and say "You want a open standard? There it is! Now you don't need to switch!". Of course they don't actually want it to be open, but they want ISO approval so they use it to convince other people that it is.

How many people will actually use ODF if the majority have software that cannot read odf files out of the box? Who will use odf? Who does now?

A few people.

Re:What effect will the ISO actually have?

[Anonymous Coward]

Suppose Microsoft's open XML format does not get passed by the ISO as it very obviously should not. What effect with this have?

I predict that this will do nothing but destroy ISO. Look, everyone that knows what a "standard" is knows what this whole fiasco is about. It may fool a few politicians (who aren't really chosen on the basis of any IQ test) and some PHB's (who really only coast on the backs of the techies who work under them) but they will all fail eventually when no one can read the .docs that Microsoft has decided to no longer support without paying $1000's. Let us not forget that ISO stands for International Standards Organization. If they accept this, which is obviously not "standard" (see below), then what are they?

Is .doc an ISO standard?

Not only is it not an "ISO standard", it isn't a "standard" at all really. Standard implies that there are rules that can be followed, that someone understands the rules and can create new software that follows those rules. Microsoft has never seen fit to publish any comprehensive summary of the rules, leaving them as the only ones capable of understanding .doc. As they have proven over the last several revisions of Word, they can't do any of the things that a "standard" implies either.

Assuming that Microsoft does not add support in its office suite for the current ISO standard ODF. How many people will actually use ODF if the majority have software that cannot read odf files out of the box? Who will use odf? Who does now?

Let me answer all of these at once with an anecdote. I worked for a company that produced products that were built on propietary microcontroller hardware and firmware. They maintained a library of several hundred different manuals in Word97 .doc format since, after all, that was the industry "standard". Well, they fought for a long time, but eventaully they had to succumb to Microsoft's upgrade pressure when Office 97 was no longer available, we couldn't read other's "standard" .doc files anymore and the BSA was breathing down everyone's neck about audits and illegal software (Google Ernie Ball). They upgraded to Office 2000 and had to reformat every manual. Not one would print correctly from Word 2000! Sometimes it was as simple as changing the spacing in headers/footers, many times it requires reformatting damned near every page, but not even one manual would print correctly in the new Word2000.

So, to answer your question:
Anyone who desires to continue to work with documents they have created and doesn't desire to rework documents they have created every time Microsoft releases a new version of Office can use odf files as an alternative. There are other formats, but I have been with Open Office since version 1.0 and I have yet to see the kind of screwup that I described above. I have my own products that are hardware/firmware based and all my manuals are written in Open Office. Right now I work with the files in Open Office, translate into .pdf's for distribution and politely but firmly refuse when anybody requests .doc versions of the manuals. So far, it hasn't been a problem. Since Open Office now works natively with odf files, that is fine with me. As (if) odf files become more accepted, I feel even more secure in the fact that, if Open Office ever pulls a stunt like I described above, I can move to another piece of software without losing all my previous work.

Re:What effect will the ISO actually have?

[blind biker]

Microsoft can point whatever the hell they want, everybody and their dogs and their fleas know full well how Microsoft got the ISO cert (that is, if they do get it). In fact, a MS rep better not point at that ISO certification, if he doesn't want to be laughed at and told to STFU right now!

Re:What effect will the ISO actually have?

[notagain.was.notagai]

Governments will drive it. A number of government in Europe and S. America have requirements that all gov docs have to be in an ISO standard format. If MS isn't ISO standard, the docs will either have to be written in Word and converted to ODF, then futzed with to get them to look right, or done in ODF in the first place. Since they will have to be disseminated as ODF, everyone else will at least need a converter from ODF to Office, in which case they'll probably look like crap, thereby leading anyone who works with lots of government documents to just bite the bullet and start using an ODF word processor.

It'll trickle down from there, with ensuing format wars between governments and large corporations who want to avoid retraining costs but are heavily dependent on government contracts, and from them to smaller sub-contractors.

The US government will probably make ODF criminal to possess in retaliation (snark, I hope). MS will try to get laws changed to consider ECMA "good enough". It'll work in some countries - it'll all depend on what the larger or more developed countries do. France, Germany, Brazil - if they hold the line, there'll exist an economic incentive to dump MS.

The people follow their bosses - people use Word because it became a standard for large businesses a decade ago, and that trickled down into the household. The reverse can happen as well.

Re:Just ask Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed, modded down.

Re:Just ask Google

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Wait 'til he gets curious enough to peek at "2Girls 1 cup"

C'mon. I DARE you!

Re:Just ask Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet you're the one that posted your address. Is that a "come over here and I'll kick your ass!" invitation? Fuckin n00b.

Expecting more?

[mugnyte]

File formats and developer platforms are part of the information revolution. To this degree, I have no clue why they'd prefer to play in-n-out with this standards concept. For the most part, if they offer a better product they get more customers. From their point of view, one could assume that by locking anything they do into any standards body is "limiting their innovative potential". Yes, this is a fallacy in most situations. Then again, only only has to look at past concepts to see antiquation: VSAM, EDI, etc.

  Answering my own question somewhat: I understand that for the large contracts, MS's products need to be transparent and open to some level. However, if they simply offered an ability to :

• store workflow information in open formats or native formats (chosen by default, every time, and enforceable by domain)
  
• interop with other formats, implementing the capabilities they'd like to capture from that market's users.
  

...they wouldn't need to mess around with all this crap. This seems like common sense to me.

In total, why fight a file format war when lock-in is based on features, not format? MS wins the office because it crams 80% of bloat into its Office products (along with the 20% of true usability), not because people "cant get away from doc,xls and ppt".

Re:Expecting more?

[Anonymous Coward]

MS wins the office because it crams 80% of bloat into its Office products (along with the 20% of true usability), not because people "cant get away from doc,xls and ppt". It's actually the other way around, MS office wins because most people know to use the doc, xls or ppt formats.

Re:Expecting more?

[Anonymous Coward]

MS wins the office because it crams 80% of bloat into its Office products (along with the 20% of true usability), not because people "cant get away from doc,xls and ppt".

Microsoft certainly wins the war when it comes to the raw number of features, but believe me, 100% portability of documents is the main reason most people are afraid of switching to OpenOffice. All my customers fear one day there will be an important document that OO won't open properly, and having seen some of those documents myself I've to agree with them. It's very rare, but it happens, and it's a risk serious businesses cannot take.
My approach in pushing the adoption of alternatives (OpenOffice in this case) is to keep a couple Office machines every 10 or so that they switch to Open Office, so they won't lose the ability to read an important document that doesn't show properly on OO.
Of course the goal in the long run is to make everybody, PHBs included, switch to Linux/BSD and drop Windows completely, but I'm not sure if my entire life dedicated to this achievement will suffice.

Re:Expecting more?

[edwdig]

In total, why fight a file format war when lock-in is based on features, not format? MS wins the office because it crams 80% of bloat into its Office products (along with the 20% of true usability), not because people "cant get away from doc,xls and ppt".

MS got into this position by file format lock-in. Office 97 got really pushed onto the market and practically just appeared everywhere. From there, the file format lock-in kept it going. Everything else faded away quickly while Office kept going tacking on more features. 10 years later, sure, MS has the feature war won. But that's just what happens when you go 10 years with your only competitor being the previous versions of your software.

Re:Expecting more?

[seandiggity]

Locking people into the file format is important, even if you only consider what's called "branding" these days ("Could you e-mail me that DOC?", "Now class, I want you to create a PowerPoint", "Is that an Acrobat file?").

Also, how many people do you know that would use OpenOffice even if it couldn't open .doc, .xls, and .ppt? Most of the .docs I get look the same in OpenOffice as MS Office because they haven't been altered by these "features" you mention (they just have some bold, italics, might contain a mix of fonts, maybe hyperlinks). But, every once in a while, I get something that doesn't look right in OpenOffice because it was saved in an MS Office format.

That kind of problem wouldn't occur if the files MS Office spit out were saved in a truly open format. Few people would care if they used OpenOffice or MS Office 2003, people might start preferring OpenOffice, and I doubt my university would be paying for MS Office licenses.

And you better believe a lot of businesses would love to move to OpenOffice if it had 100% compatibility with the Office 2003 formats (it's much easier to move John Q. User from MS Office 2003 --> OpenOffice than from MS Office 2003 --> MS Office 2007). They also wouldn't have to worry about Microsoft dropping an incompatible new format on them at some unknown date that only some people could open. I've already seen many cases of, "I can't open this attachment. What's a .*x file?" If a Microsoft lackey were in the room, his solution would be: "Upgrade to Office 2007!" And file formats don't keep users locked in?

Re:Expecting more?

[Bert64]

However it's a fallacy that you get 100% compatibility, even with msoffice...
Formats are subtly different between versions (except 2007, which is completely different) causing incompatibilities...
Also configuration plays a part, your printer settings will affect how a word file will look even in the same version!
And even security updates break things...
The only way to ensure compatibility, is to ensure everyone in your organisation runs exactly the same version with exactly the same configuration, but you can still have problems if you try to open stuff up from external sources.

Re:Expecting more?

[mugnyte]

  Well, after reading all the comments to this end, I'll relent. MS certainly seems to have tricked the public into thinking they're trapped by these formats, when really, much as you mention, its the features that they bind themselves to.

  For the 1000's of file I scan (in forensics) that are MS office formats, I see very little usage of the features that lock users in. Perhaps when they are indeed used, they're absolutely necessary, but for the majority of file, users could save as a compatible format and not worry too much about lock in. When I've done conversion projects (make everything a PDF, etc) most of the content transfer just fine, but the target system has to recreate the features.

  So I waver, but lets say its a combination of format and feature.

Re:Just ask Google

[Gideon Fubar]

Welcome to the intarnets.. if things are likely to offend you, ever, you should remember to use the status bar on your browser to confirm the link before you click on it.

Also, feeding trolls is considered bad form. The general rule is ignore them or they have won.

It's my chessboard, I'll make the rules.

[HermMunster]

Screw you. It's my board. I'll make the rules about how we play. Screw the rules committee. If you won't adopt my rules you can't play with my board. Waaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!

I don't get it

[m2943]

If OOXML doesn't become an ISO standard, why would ISO bother publishing errata for an ECMA standard?

Re:I don't get it

[ThirdPrize]

Doesn't the idea of having 3 standards (ECMA, ISO and OASIS) seem a bit self defeating? What we need is a meta standard.

Zonk? No, blame me.

[Anonymous Coward]

Submitter here. I'm the one who goofed it up. Between the DMCA and YMCA, I always type that acronym wrong. It's my fault I submitted it wrong, not Zonk's. And in his defense, it's an easy mistake to make.

Good old Microsoft !

[unity100]

it never fails to stab from the back !! - no pal, this aint no troll, since THAT consistent score of stunts pulled out over whomever they dealed with in any manner, deserves a 45% crit rating bonus to ambush and 30% crit rating bonus to backstab !!!

It's ECMA, not EMCA.

[falconwolf]

No, it's Emca International.

Falcon

Was that supposed to be an excuse?

[SanityInAnarchy]

Specifically, what was the point in saying "Microsoft is a business"?

I am an American. That doesn't make me fat, lazy, and stupid, and it doesn't mean I support Bush.

There are businesses which are not corrupt, and which would not insist on keeping control of a "standard" once it became a standard. And that's the way it should be, and when did so many people become so fucking complacent about corporate corruption?

Re:Was that supposed to be an excuse?

[Erikderzweite]

Well, being an *US*-American does make you refer to USA as "America" which is a continent (two continents, actually) ;-)

There are businesses which are not corrupt, and which would not insist on keeping control of a "standard" once it became a standard. And that's the way it should be, and when did so many people become so fucking complacent about corporate corruption?

Name three.

Re:Was that supposed to be an excuse?

[SanityInAnarchy]

Well, being an *US*-American does make you refer to USA as "America" which is a continent (two continents, actually) ;-)

True enough, although I can say I have been to South America. Except no one calls it America there, they call it South America, or they call it Peru. (Or Chile, or Brazil, or...)

As for businesses, a quick list: The Mozilla foundation, Slashdot, Google and IBM as far as I know, various small businesses (Progressive Asset Management, Scribestorm, Thaddeus Computing, local restaurants...)

I will admit, it gets harder, as often what you thought was a good company gets bought by a larger, somewhat evil company, until you have this vast corporate empire that, being run by so many people, is too schizophrenic to properly classify. But I don't think I really need more than one good example, because my point isn't that there are many corporations, or even that there are any corporations, which are not corrupt.

My point is, it sickens me to see people use the "They're a business" excuse, because what usually follows is that complacency -- I mean, we're not a business, what can we do?

MS's ability to redirect FOSS efforts

[filbranden]

The more articles I read about FOSS vs. MS, the more I start to realise what MS's war tactics: to redirect the enemy's effort so that MS wins time.

I mean, that's the only possible explanation for:

1. The MOOXML standards effort and all the nastiness that happened involving bribes, etc.
2. The Classmate project with Intel, and now trying to run Windows on the OLPC itself.
3. The supposed patents that Linux infringes, and the Novell deal.
4. Silverlight & .NET, and having MS shills in Novell develop Moonlight & Mono.

It all seems so absurd, but most people tend to think that MS's end objectives are to win those battles (the ISO standard, Windows in schools, or to sue RH for patents).

In fact, I think that they realised that their software cannot compete in quality with FOSS, even more now after Vista, that they gave up on improving their software quality, and decided to try to make lots of random absurd statements that will enrage FOSS community, and have them (us) all engaging in forums, political discussion, standards organizations...

Eventually, they'll get the last of us to stop coding to engage on the war against them.

And who will lose? The users, of course.

The saddest part is that their tactics are working. The hope is that, so far, I think FOSS is showing that it's stronger that MS not only in coding ability and software quality, but in politics as well.

Re:MS's ability to redirect FOSS efforts

[JoeCommodore]

I believe all of those were honest (for MS) efforts to be competitive, all of them represented a lot of work, investment na d marketing, but are either a tad too late, just the same ol stuff against a competing more popular format.

It was a lot easier for them when a lot of these deals were fought in the back rooms (old boy politics), but with open standards as well as community efforts improving quality and open communication they really can't be considered as much of 'the standard' as they were thought to be a few years back.

Their size is finally catching up with them, MS now turns wide corners on innovation as they follow the others with their white boards - trying to match feature with feature, but either can't compete with the FOSS outside talent, are too encumbered by their back-room partnerships (RIAA, MPAA, etc), or are still too set on the old ways of 'embrace and extinguish'. Not to mention the waving the flag of an OS rapidly gaining the perception as overly expensive, continuously buggy and a security liability.

Re:MS's ability to redirect FOSS efforts

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot to add the whole SCO fiasco. And yes, you are quite right: M$ is resorting to a dirty war just to try and hang on to their empire. Fucking scumbags.

Re:Zonk? No, blame me.

[jjohnson]

It's good of you to step like this, but part of the basic job description of an editor is proofreading. And your job isn't submitting stories, while his *is* proofreading them.

Seriously, the whole point of this site is viewing and discussing a set of links that have been vetted by a set of editors. When they fail to demonstrate basic editorialship, it really defeats the purpose.

It'd be naive to think Microsoft keeps promises

[Xenographic]

> Nobody should be surprised by this, much less Rob Weir. He feigns surprise and acts like this is a shocking development.

He does? I didn't see any "surprise" in there. I saw him saying that Microsoft promised that the ISO would get this control and then went back on its promise. You'll forgive me if I don't find that surprising.

From what Rob Weir wrote, as quoted on Groklaw (which, BTW, is what the Slashdot submission actually links to, just so you know):

So much for the promises. What makes this story worthy of a blog post is that we now know that, as these promises were be made to NB's, at that same time Ecma was planning something that contradicted their public assurances.

> Here's news for you, and Rob, and everyone else. *NO FAST TRACK ISO STANDARD IS OWNED BY ISO*. Fast tracking, by it's very design, puts the onus on standards maintenance and evolution on the standards body that submits it.

So... Microsoft promised something it knew it wouldn't deliver? Nope. Still not surprised. That doesn't make this any better, and I'm kinda disappointed in anyone who voted for OOXML because of that empty promise, but I'm definitely not surprised. How many people have been burned for trusting Microsoft? Or maybe I should ask, can anyone name a Microsoft "partner" that wasn't left out to dry when things became inconvenient or unprofitable for Microsoft? Yes, yes, even "partners" should expect that. I know that I sure as hell would. But that's why I try to avoid having anything to do with them if possible. I know they'll shaft me for a nickel.

> Rob knows this, but he's being deliberately disingenuous.

More or less disingenuous than someone with a track record of defending Microsoft claiming that Rob shouldn't be "surprised" by this when he's not, but merely calling on Microsoft to fulfill its promise? Disappointed, maybe, but I just don't see the "surprise" because this isn't the first time Microsoft has done something like this by any means.

> By the way, the same is true for ODF. OASIS is the steward for current ODF maintenance and improvement.

Can you point to anywhere where OASIS promised the ISO this control? No? Then then the two issues aren't really comparable, are then? I mean, OASIS can't break a promise they never made. I mean, even if Rob had been surprised by this, do you really think that complaining that someone was surprised that Microsoft lied because they should've somehow expected this is a good thing?

I mean, honestly, what the hell kind of supporters does Microsoft have these days? :]

Re:It'd be naive to think Microsoft keeps promises

[man_of_mr_e]

I'm sorry, but you're completely out in left field on this. Everyone involved in ISO knows how ISO works, and what Fast Track means. Nobody voted thinking ISO would control it. If they did, then they have no business voting in the first place.

Whether or not MS made comments that could be interpreted as "promises" is irrelevant. Rob knew all along that ISO would not control a Fast Tracked standard, and if he had problems with MS statements, he should have called them on those statements at the time they were made, not waiting until he could pull a strawman out of his ass.

I don't interpret any of the statements that Rob (taken out of context, of course) offers as promises of an ISO control, but rather that ISO "locks in" a given set of documentation as a standard. ISO can then control whether changes that are submitted later continue to be part of the standard or not.

What Rob wants to FUD by insinuation (knowing full well that this isn't the case) is that Microsoft will somehow, miraculously be able to change the standard at their whim after it's been ratified. That's simply not the case. Even though Microsoft will be responsible for any maintenance or evolution of the format, ISO still controls what is called an ISO standard or not. If ISO says "no" to a change, it doesn't make it into a later version of the standard. That's all there is to it.

Re:It'd be naive to think Microsoft keeps promises

[jhol13]

Even though Microsoft will be responsible for any maintenance or evolution of the format, ISO still controls what is called an ISO standard or not. You seem to miss the whole point.

Let's start from "the beginning". Why should OOXML become standard? Why do you want it to become one (I suppose you do, otherwise I cannot see the point in your post).

I can see following possibilities:
1. It helps you by making interoperability better.
2. It helps you by making you feel better because Microsoft got what it wants (or F/OSS or Mr. Weir or whatnot didn't).

I cannot really see any other points[1]. Longevity of documents clearly is covered by point 1. Compatibility with old Microsoft documents is also, although it would make more sense to standardize the binary.

Now if you are not trolling it must be the point one, right?

So how is interoperability improved by standardising a format which nobody is going to use? Now Microsoft has admitted it will not use it, they will use some updated version. Others in practice cannot (and if could it would not help interoperability at all).

So, once again, why should this standard be ratified?

[1] I was lying, I can. Microsoft wants use this as a way to sell products by claiming to use standards compliant file formats. Not a very good point, but ...

Re:It'd be naive to think Microsoft keeps promises

[man_of_mr_e]

Yes, point #1 is the reason.

I'm not sure it makes any more sense to make the binary format an ISO standard than it does to make OOXML one. OOXML is basically just the binary documents expressed in XML. It's more interoperable than a binary format because it allows documents to be used more easily in text processing systems, and online document management systems. Thus, the billions of legacy documents can be converted to a format that is more interoperable, without the need to verify whether the conversion was accurate or not.

Sure, a large percentage of documents *COULD* be converted to ODF, but because the formats are not 1:1, it would require each document to be analyzed after conversion to determine if the translation was accurate or not. OOXML is 1:1 with the binary format, meaning it's just a different way of expressing the same data. ODF requires "translation", not just conversion. This is the need that OOXML fills, bringing legacy binary documents into the age of interoperable XML.

Even if MS made Office save all new documents as ODF, and reserved OOXML only for conversion of legacy documents, i'd still say OOXML needs to be standardized, simply for the fact that there are billions of documents that would benefit from it.

The fact of the matter is, either the binary formats or OOXML have to be standardized, because governments want their legacy documents in a standard format, and conversion to ODF just isn't feasible. It would be like trusting the conversion of billions of important documents from english to japanese to Google Translator, without anyone manually verifying the translation of each and every document.

As for your last point, about Microsoft using a different format, that's no different than OpenOffice who are working on new versions of ODF as well, so that's not a very practical argument. All standard formats have errata and require maintenance to fix problems. Neither OOXML or ODF are immune to that.

Re:It'd be naive to think Microsoft keeps promises

[jhol13]

The reason is simple. The XML is not really XML, not in syntax and definitely not in spirit. Add the problems of the format and you quickly get to the "third" option.

There are not billion documents using OOXML. There are billion documents using the binary format. And there is no known converter from the binary to the XMLish. And by your own argument, the conversion is not feasible.

Best way would have been to amend ODF so that (one directional) one-to-one mapping can be done. This is clearly possible and much preferable, at least by my standards.

The difference between OpenOfficeOrg and Microsoft (of not using 1.0 spec) should be extremely obvious. The version OOo is using is openly available, used by many and most likely will be ISO specification in due time. And, most importantly, the version OOo is using has not been decided by OOo team.

Re:It'd be naive to think Microsoft keeps promises

[man_of_mr_e]

Excuse me? OOXML is, in fact, fully valid XML. Where do you get that idea from?

I didn't say there were billions of documents using OOXML. Yes, there are billions of legacy .doc and xls and ppt files. And there is, in fact, a known converter. Dozens of them in fact. Office itself is one giant converter that can be controlled via script. Office 2007 can read a binary document, save it as OOXML and none of the data changes because all the same binary elements are represented by xml elements. Conversion of such documents are completely feasible because the document conversion can occur automatically, without the need to verify if the the document still looks the same, or if any data got lost.

The same is not true of conversion to ODF, or any other format that isn't 1:1 compatible with the binary formats.

Sun and IBM are not going to amend ODF to suit MS Office. In fact, they worked very hard to exclude anything that could make ODF compatible with Office, according to Marbux and Gary Edwards. They claimed that Sun and IBM explicitly shot down anything that could make ODF interoperable with Office. It's not in Sun's or IBM's best interest to allow Microsoft to compete fairly, which is why they spend so much time FUDing OOXML rather than promoting ODF.

Re:It'd be naive to think Microsoft keeps promises

[jhol13]

OOXML is not valid XML, especially on the spirit. Please do your home work, check www.dis29500.org!

1. It does not user &x0008; -style extension for non-printable characters, rather it uses it's own.
2. It uses bitmaps. It is arguable whether these are allowed in XML at all, but certainly they are against the spirit of XML.
3. It does not always use base64 for binary data. Again, maybe not against the letter of XML but definitely against the spirit.
4. It does not use existing schemas (MathML, ...) but invents its own. Against the spirit.
5. Date values are not using ISO8601. Against the spirit, if not letter.

You keep on claiming 1:1 compatibility with the binary formats. I'd like to see the converter which can convert the several hundred different formats ranging from Word 2 to Office 2007, including Word 97/Finnish. Yes, Finnish (and French, German, ...) had different format - Excel function names were localized[1]. Before I see it to really work, I do not believe you.

I just recently opened Word 2 document in Office 2003 - in my machine it was OK, in a colleagues machine part of the text was converted to ZingBats, i.e. were unreadable (not an isolated case, by far). Trivial to correct, yes, but shows that Microsoft themselves cannot read the binary format. Btw, I have had to open a word documents on OOo just to read it as Word has refused to open it.

So where can I download the converter, as it apparently can do better job? Nowhere? I'm not surprised, Yet Another Unfulfilled Microsoft Promise.

As I said before, ODF can be extended/annexed so that it can include everything necessary for the binary formats. There already exists OOXML -> ODF converters (which are most likely not 100% correct as today) so if binary -> OOXML converter can be created (which I doubt) I cannot see why not.

[1] Maybe it was word 2, not 97.

Re:It'd be naive to think Microsoft keeps promises

[man_of_mr_e]

Your arguments are patently ridiculous. Something cannot be "invalid XML" "in spirt". That's just wishful thinking on your part. None of your arguments bring up any technical invalidity. All "valid XML" means is that the code can be parsed by a valid XML implementation. OOXML is certainly that.

What's more, the term "in the spirit" means "In the manner for which it was designed". The problem with your argument is that none of the things you mention existed when XML was designed, so it's impossible for "violations" of those things to not be "in the spirit".

Basically, your argument is that you don't like the design choices MS made. That's a fair argument, but you seem to feel the need to embellish your argument by making false claims of invalidity, then trying to use a fallacious "in the spirit" argument to back it up.

I can't argue about Finish versions of Word, as I have no basis to discuss that. However, your arguments about ancient versions of word, while you have a point, are not particularly relevant because the vast majority of documents out there will not be from versions quite that old (though there may be some) and such documents would almost certainly fail in the conversion process, allowing them to be analyzed manually. There are reasons beyond mere faithfulness of data that result in what you've seen, most likely the largest one being that the fonts used in the document don't exist on the machine it where it was converted. This is a problem with ODF as well as OOXML, but has nothing to do with the conversion of the document. If you had a copy of Word 2.0 to open that document, you'd have the same problem.

And, BTW, you might want to update your arguments. OOXML doesn't use bitmaps in the XML, it stores them as binary files in zip archives, just like OpenOffice does. While I believe the format doesn't disallow it, as this was used in Office 2003 XML formats, it was changed for OOXML. But you see, that's the problem with the majority of the arguments against OOXML made by people that really don't know anything about OOXML, they only parrot what they've been told (by people with financial interests in seeing OOXML fail)... thus they don't really know if the arguments they are so vigorously making are, in fact, true or not.

There's no doubt that OOXML has plenty of problems, and I would hazard a guess that if Microsoft were to design a new format without considering backwards compatibility, it would be vastly different. But reality is that backwards compatibility is the #1 issue facing any document format, and that's why ODF will ultimately fail. Those organizations that are being snowballed into mandating ODF will soon discover the problems inherent in translative conversion, and when they start violating other laws regarding document archiving fidelity, they'll be in a bit of a paradox.

Re:It'd be naive to think Microsoft keeps promises

[jhol13]

Invalid XML: http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections#Non-XML_formatting_codes
Bitmasks (sorry, I made a "language-typo" when I wrote bitmaps): http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections#Ecma_376_uses_bitmasks.2C_inhibiting_extensibility_and_use_of_standard_XML_tools

More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OOXML#Technical_criticisms

I think it is extremely idiotic not to consider bitmasks, non-ISO dates, etc. as against the "spirit" of XML. You do have your right for your opinion, no matter how ridiculous it IMHO is.

HTH. HAND.

Re:It'd be naive to think Microsoft keeps promises

[man_of_mr_e]

The Non-XML formatting codes are not invalid XML, they're simply custom defined XML. They're still valid markup.
The Bitmasks are also valid, just not easy to use in many implementations.

XML doesn't define a date format, as such any date format is valid. It can't be "not in the spirit of XML" because XML doesn't have a spirit when it comes to dates. You're applying different arguments to the wrong subject. But that's typical of someone that merely repeats what he's told, and doesn't actually understand what it is he's arguing about.

Re:It'd be naive to think Microsoft keeps promises

[jhol13]

base64 /;a'

Passes every past, present and future XML parser so by your "understanding" it must be XML.

Haha

[codingmasters]

All the more reason why OOXML should be scrapped in favour of ODF.

Re:Haha

[Anonymous Coward]

ODF? you mean the file format that has no maint plan within the ISO framework whatsoever? that would be the file format that is predominatly managed and directed (however it is masked) by Sun and IBM within OASIS? Or are you talking about adopting one of the many non-ISO approved iterations of ODF? 1.1, 1.2, 1.3? A solid plan indeed!

Easier to answer one's own questions...

[Xenographic]

> Nobody voted thinking ISO would control it. If they did, then they have no business voting in the first place.

I thought blaming victims went out of vogue a long time ago, but insofar as that can be read to say that trusting Microsoft is naive, I can agree.

> Whether or not MS made comments that could be interpreted as "promises" is irrelevant. Rob knew all along that ISO would not control a Fast Tracked standard, and if he had problems with MS statements, he should have called them on those statements at the time they were made, not waiting until he could pull a strawman out of his ass.

One generally calls someone out for breaking a promise AFTER they break it. Although I will admit that you make a good point that it would be more efficient to call Microsoft out for breaking them beforehand, given the previous line.

> I don't interpret any of the statements that Rob (taken out of context, of course) offers as promises of an ISO control, but rather that ISO "locks in" a given set of documentation as a standard. ISO can then control whether changes that are submitted later continue to be part of the standard or not.

That level of control can hardly be considered meaningful. But meaningless token gestures are par for the course, I suppose.

> What Rob wants to FUD by insinuation (knowing full well that this isn't the case) is that Microsoft will somehow, miraculously be able to change the standard at their whim after it's been ratified. That's simply not the case.

Actually, I'm much more worried that they'll leave it as-is. If I thought they were going to rush out a fixed version that dropped all application-defined behaviors, used or at least supported existing standards, killed all legacy bugs and was truly open, I would support that.

> Even though Microsoft will be responsible for any maintenance or evolution of the format, ISO still controls what is called an ISO standard or not. If ISO says "no" to a change, it doesn't make it into a later version of the standard. That's all there is to it.

I have a hard time seeing why it would be meaningful to promise that ISO gets to control what's called an ISO standard. One might think that that was their purpose. But I suppose I already addressed meaningless token gestures.

Microsoft must think that...

[Chrisq]

Its Fun to stay at the E-M-C-A
Its fun to stay at the E-M-C-Aa
They have everything monopolists enjoy
You can hang out with all the boys

Chair of the working group just quit in disgust

[dominux]

well to be fair, it was the end of his three year term, but his departing report is stinging. via http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2007/12/06/commiserations-to-my-successor-ooxml-strikes-again/

The disparity of rules for PAS, Fast-Track and ISO committee generated standards is fast making ISO a laughing stock in IT circles. The days of open standards development are fast disappearing. Instead we are getting "standardization by corporation", something I have been fighting against for the 20 years I have served on ISO committees. I am glad to be retiring before the situation becomes impossible. I wish my colleagues every success for their future efforts, which I sincerely hope will not prove to be as wasted as I fear they could be.

FUD via willful ignorance

[I'm Don Giovanni]

ODF is an ISO standard, but ISO doesn't control ODF, Sun/OO.o does thru OASIS. Who do you think is working on ODF 1.1 and 1.2, ISO? Wrong.
PDF is an ISO standard, yet ISO doesn't control PDF, Adobe does. Who do you think is working on the next versions of PDF, ISO? Wrong.

It's standard practice that when ISO merely ratifies rather than develops a standard, the entitiy that proposed the standard to ISO is the one that works on future versions, versions that will then have to themselves be submitted to ISO in order to be ratified as ISO standards.

Rob Weir, groklaw, and slashdotters *know* this, yet are pretending not to in order to score political points. Willful and feigned misunderstanding/shock is really the lowest debating tactic there is, and is a tactic deployed when stronger arguments are lacking.

In fact, the last two Rob Weir blog entries have been baseless FUD, because he's scared that the objections to OOXML are going to be addressed sufficiently to be approved by ISO, so rather than dealing with technical issues, he deals with this type of garbage.

Re:FUD via willful ignorance

[Tony]

ODF is an ISO standard, but ISO doesn't control ODF, Sun/OO.o does thru OASIS.

Your argument is extremely flawed. OASIS is much more than just Sun/OO.o. IBM, Novell, and Adobe are also on the ODF TC. This is a multi-vendor standardization group, with a real interest in cross-vendor interoperability.

There's also a huge difference between OASIS and Microsoft. Microsoft has tried to game the system to force ratification of their proposal. Microsoft has not proposed a standard that is fully implementable by any other vendor. Microsoft has shown itself resistant to cooperation.

Microsoft has not indicated they are willing to seek a true standard. They will remain solely in control. They will not provide full, free license to implement the standard. They will not promise to adhere to the standard themselves, or to refrain from introducing proprietary extensions of modifications.

That is, Microsoft appears to desire an ISO rubber stamp on their own document lock-in, rather than to pursue an open standard implementable by any other vendor.

Essentially, Microsoft has betrayed its trust. *This* is what Microsoft apologists ignore, to score political points.

In Switzerland, those who knew told lies

[jafoc]

I'm sorry, but you're completely out in left field on this. Everyone involved in ISO knows how ISO works, and what Fast Track means. Nobody voted thinking ISO would control it. If they did, then they have no business voting in the first place.

Like probably in many other countries, here in Switzerland the OOXML vote attracted the attention of mostly people who did not have any previous in-depth involvement in ISO/IEC processes. In fact in the concerned standardization subcommittee, there were exactly two people with previous knowledge of how the ISO/IEC process works, namely the subcommittee chairman Mr Thomann and the Ecma secretary-general Mr Sebestyen (who claimed to participate simply as just a member of the subcommittee "of course we want OOXML to be approved", but in reality had much greater influence than any other member). Both of them abused their advantage in this situation of information asymmetry by telling lies about how the ISO/IEC process works and about its criteria.

For example, subcommittee chairman Mr Thomann claimed (with Ecma secretary-general Mr Sebestyen right next to him and not disagreeing) that approving OOXML as ISO/IEC standard would be good for interoperability between OOXML and ODF because the two would then be maintained by the same technical committee of ISO/IEC.

EMCA?

[clacke]

It's fun to stay in the E-M-C-A!
I say we stay in the E-M-C-A!
They got everything for young nerds to enjoy,
You can hang out with Billyboy!

I'm quite certain, though, that the actual association where this "standard" first landed was actually the ECMA.

Re:Just ask Google

[Daengbo]

Thanks for that. I actually searched to find 2girls1cup.com

Corporate original sin

[CustomDesigned]

There are businesses which are not corrupt, and which would not insist on keeping control of a "standard" once it became a standard. And that's the way it should be, and when did so many people become so fucking complacent about corporate corruption?

Name three. The concept of original sin sees every human person as bearing seeds of moral corruption that, barring a miracle, will eventually result in spiritual death. Corporations, formed from individual people, seem to manifest the same principle. Like Google, they can resolve to do good, but keep slipping further from the goal. Like IBM, they can reform, but the downward spiral is only delayed, not reversed. Healthy diet and exercise can delay, but not prevent bodily decay and physical death. Good deeds and moral resolve can delay, but not prevent spiritual decay and death.

But along with this, people - and corporations - are not at the same place morally. Many people you know are good moral people (regardless of religion or lack of it). And many corporations are still trying to remain focused on worthy goals. That is the original purpose of "mission statements". I personally predict that Microsoft will repent and enter a reform period like IBM after the current principals lose their influence.

Here are three corps that are currently struggling to be good. Of course, I may be ignorant of recent sins which might change my judgment. 1) Google 2) IBM 3) Ben and Jerry

Not the dog and the fleas...

[Dr_Barnowl]

.. but the pond scum^W^Wmanagement. You know, that stuff that rises to the top, so far above the rest so as not to be troubled by the smells and clamouring of the hoi-polloi?

They won't have the first clue. They'll just see the ISO certification from their cosy leather chair, and add *their* rubber stamp to the list.

Is 'corporate' a synonym for 'corrupt'?

[Anonymous Coward]

..... when did so many people become so fucking complacent about corporate corruption? Right about the same time that 'corporate' became a synonym for 'corrupt'. Recent crap like Enron, the Subprime crunch, Halliburton/Iraq etc... (this list goes on, and on, and on, and on.....) has done nothing but reinforce the perception that all corporations are bunch of greedy self serving weasels. This is of course not true but it doesn't help that scandals keep rolling in and that certain politicians, who are so obviously owned (or rented on a part-time basis) by certain corporations and special interests groups, do little or nothing to reform the situation. Don't even get me started on the issue of oil and coal industry sponsored neocon politicians, environmental issues and the patently obvious uselessness of favourite Bush administration ideas on the subject like: 'voluntary self regulation by industry' which translates into plain english as: 'Yawn.... lets just ignore the problem'

No credit for me please

[dominux]

I am Alan Bell, (the secret is out) and I put together dis29500.org (with the help of The Open Sourcerer) but the content and suggestions were not written by us, although we do agree with many of them. The comments were written by the National Bodies. I believe the US gets credit for this one http://dis29500.org/us-0270

Maintenance

[miguel]

Although you can handle stuff to ISO, that does not mean there is a staff that can just work on it, which is why ECMA has approached ISO to work out a way in which ECMA can continue to contribute to the effort.

Brian Jones blogged a response to this which puts things in perspective here: http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/

I saw this blog from one of the current chairs of the ODF committee in OASIS: http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/12/bait-and-switch.html

So, ODF was adopted as an ISO standard about a year ago, and since then there has already been a new version of ODF (1.1) released by OASIS, and they are supposedly close on version 1.2. I believe 1.2 is supposed to be significant as they've promised it will include a formula definition for spreadsheets (although the working group hasn't seen much activity lately if you look at the mailing list archives: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office-formula/). So, the maintenance of ODF right now is being handled solely by OASIS, and I'm not sure what their plans are for bringing new drafts to the ISO.

Now, one of the Chairs of the ODF committee (IBM and Sun are now co-chairs of the ODF committee) has a blog post saying that Microsoft is somehow pulling a "bait and switch" because Ecma has proposed to ISO that a joint maintenance agreement be set up once DIS 29500 is approved. We're still months away from approval, but TC45 has already reached out and tried to start a discussion around maintenance.

So it's been a year since Rob's committee had its ISO approval and has since then maintained sole control; and TC45's DIS 29500 still has a few months before approval and they are already trying to establish a maintenance agreement. And this is now called a "bait and switch"?

That's my Weird Moment of the Day.

Miguel.

Re:Maintenance

[Tony]

How is this enlightening?

Microsoft said they'd do one thing. Now, they have changed what they said. It is a bait and switch. Period.

OASIS is a group of many vendors. ODF is a specification and standard worked on by many vendors, with much assurance that the standard is implementable by multiple vendors (or anyone off the street, for that matter), with no surcharges or requirements for permission. That makes it a true standard.

OOXML is a format that is poorly-specified and fully implementable by exactly one vendor: Microsoft. There is only one vendor responsible for the specification. That vendor promised that ISO would have a modicum of control over maintenance of the standard. Now, that vendor has reversed that decision. That is, in any book, a "bait-and-switch." (As an aside-- it's a little disingenuous to claim the ECMA is the one proposing this change, as the ECMA has worked on the vendor's behalf since the beginning.)

If Microsoft is truly after a standard based on OOXML, it *must* release control to a multi-vendor group, with representatives from the free software crowd. It *must* remove all restrictions on implementation. It *must* provide patent grants non-gratis to all implementations that adhere to the standard. It *must* vow to adhere to the standard itself, without proprietary extensions.

Without these promises and actions, Microsoft is not proposing a standard, it is asking for an ISO number for itself. It is asking for industry approval of its document format lock-in.

Microsoft has squandered what little trust the industry had, gaming the ISO standardization processes, and now it wonders why everyone is suspicious? Microsoft has betrayed us too many times. If it wishes to regain our trust, they must make honest and open efforts to cooperate in a meaningful way, not just write smug, self-righteous blog entries.

Re:Maintenance

[Palestrina]

And Ecma does have dedicated staff that works on standards maintenance? That is news to me. I think if the maintenance were done in SC34,it would still rely heavily on subject matter experts from Microsoft and other participants in TC45, including GNOME. Or do you think that Microsoft or the others have some aversion to working within JTC1 and would refuse to do maintenance within the very organization whose approval they now seek? In any case, Brian is incorrect regarding ODF maintenance. The maintenance agreement between OASIS and JTC1 was agreed to before the ODF ballot in ISO even started. That is how it works for PAS submissions. Fast Track submissions on the other hand default to JTC1-maintenance, though other terms can be negotiated. Since Novell is an OASIS member, and an ODF TC member, you could have easily checked these facts for yourself rather than merely repeating Microsoft's misinformed statements. I'm disappointed, though not surprised, that you did not make this minimal effort.

Hm.

[Quixotic Raindrop]

Wait. Microsoft reneged on an agreement? Microsoft said they'd do one thing to gain approval and support for their version of reality, then did something else? That's unpossible!

A new question, then...

[SanityInAnarchy]

WHY have so many people, including so many Slashdotters, become so complacent?

Wrong desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

My uncles cousins brothers stepsons nephews fathers granddaddys cleaner sort of knows Bill Gates mum, and according to her Bill prefers Gnome not KBE, although don't expect to see it in Vista SP1 anytime soon.

Probably a smart move for MS

[Anonymous Coward]

Since the ISO has repeatedly made statements revealing their rabid anti-MS hatred, it's probably for the best that MS isn't going to allow them to control the software standard future versions of MS Office use.

Also, seeing as how ODF self destructed, it's not like there is any competition anyway. And, the funny thing about ODF is how, once it imploded, when the "TEH OMG WE NNEEDZ US TEH OPEN DOKUMNET FORTMANT!!111" people kind of disappeared once they realized the only tangible open document format would have to come out of Redmond.

Poor FOSSies, always getting omgwtfpwned by reality.

Normal bait and switch.

[Neanderthal Ninny]

Isn't this the normal thing with companies nowadays? The say one thing in their marketing and demos and then when production comes they change the specs.

Yes it's XML really.

[rdebath]

OOXML remind me of this...

http://worsethanfailure.com/Articles/XML_vs_CSV__0x3a__The_Choice_is_Obvious.aspx

Ecma International

[HeroreV]

Your post consisted of one word, and you still got it wrong.

"ECMA" became "Ecma International" in 1994. That's about 13 years ago! Will people ever recognize this name change?

This is a hundred times worse than the "wxWindows" to "wxWidgets" name change.

ISO not an initialism

[HeroreV]

Let us not forget that ISO stands for International Standards Organization. But it doesn't. The full official names are "International Organization for Standardization" and "Organisation internationale de normalisation".

"ISO" is not an acronym or initialism for the organization's full name. It comes from the Greek word "isos", which means equal.

Re:Just ask Google

[donstenk72]

Thanks for that.

I'm on the net since 96 and have come across goatse previously by mistake.

Curiosity killed my mood......

Re:Just ask Google

[Gideon Fubar]

No probs buddy.. it's just, it's a little surprising to see a person with a UID as low as yours baited by a troll.

Why do you defend MSXML?

[Erris]

Your continued defense of MSXML is puzzling. MSXML and ODF are worlds apart, why present them as comparable "standards"? People have shown that MSXML is patent encumbered, incomplete, and contradictory. It is being advanced by a single company with a track record for anti-competitive practices. Why do you defend it's owner and the spec itself as reasonable?

I can almost understand wanting to have free software implementations of MSXML. The fear is that M$ will use it's monopoly power to push their standard and free software will be left in the lurch unless there is substantial effort now. The problem is practically avoiding that. Can you have free implementations of things that have patent and trade secret problems? Do you really trust M$ to give you what you need to make a competitive product? As a user, I'm grateful to have free implementations of WORD.DOC and other legacy formats, but it's never enough to overcome M$'s treachery. I can't really use these legacy formats to collaborate with peers. My perspective is that these efforts don't work and as soon as they come close, M$ moves the goal posts because they have never cared about their customers. Overall, I'm glad that some people will spend their time on such things. Legacy format translators give people an exit and a way to preserve work they once trusted to non free software.

What I don't understand is a continued belief that anything Microsoft says or does can be trusted. It is in their power and best interest to waste your effort and insure you never succeed. Peter Quinn can tell you where reason goes when push comes to shove. How can you trust a partner like that?

dullard

[Anonymous Coward]

MSXML is a parser, much like libexpat. You can't even get your acronyms straight.

Miguel, don't waste your time replying to "Erris" here, he's a well-known troll and crapflooder who has already ruined several accounts with his 2nd grade "M$ WINBLOZES LOLOL" smegma that gets him negative moderation every single time.

"twitter" and "Erris" are no better than the troll that uses your name to post on Slashdot. They disrupt intelligent conversations, harm the community and are a huge nuisance. They should all be banned.