Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Promise of OOXML Oversight By ISO Falls Through

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the so-it's-only-standard-for-them dept.

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 While they originally made assurances that the ISO would take control of the standard if it were approved, Microsoft is now reversing that position and keeping near-full control over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."

2 of 216 comments (clear)

  1. Standard? by MeNeXT · · Score: 4, Informative

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

    --
    DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...
  2. It'd be naive to think Microsoft keeps promises by Xenographic · · Score: 4, Informative

    > 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? :]