Slashdot Mirror
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 While they originally made assurances that the ISO would take control of the standard if it were approved, Microsoft is now reversing that position and keeping near-full control over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."
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?
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.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
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.
Cause it SOUNDS like OpenOffice XML.
OO = Open Office
OOXML =! Open Office XML
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.
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.
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?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
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.