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 While they originally made assurances that the ISO would take control of the standard if it were approved, Microsoft is now reversing that position and keeping near-full control over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."
...not EMCA?
... please hold up your hands.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
...I can read one of these stories and think,
"Microsoft?? Are they *still* in business?"
Oh well. One can dream.
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
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.
This is bullshit.
I'm tired of this Microsoft monopoly crap. Why the hell doesn't anyone stop this crap from happening.
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...
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.
- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
Maybe they get started in Canada, eh?
Engineering is the art of compromise.
...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.
Who are you? The new #2 Who is #1? You are #617565. I am not a number, I am a free man! Muhahaha.
It is actually Ecma. Ecma no longer stands for European Computer Manufacturers Association. It is just plain ol' Ecma International now.
Who are you? The new #2 Who is #1? You are #617565. I am not a number, I am a free man! Muhahaha.
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.
Link is just another shocksite redirect similar to other articles.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Everyone surprised by this, please hold up your unicorn!
-Peter
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.
so I wasn't that far off-base!
No, it stands for Exceptionally Corrupt Microsoft Apologists. Didn't you get the memo?
Ian Ameline
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 :
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".
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.
http://www.xkcd.com/354/
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!
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:
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.
> 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?
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.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
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.
Put identity in the browser.
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
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.
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.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
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.