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 While they originally made assurances that the ISO would take control of the standard if it were approved, Microsoft is now reversing that position and keeping near-full control over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? But it's fun to stae and the EMCA...Bow-ties are cool.
...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.
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...
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..
http://www.xkcd.com/354/
...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.
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.
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.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
My unicorn is out back, eating glitter... Terrible. She farts rainbows for a couple days afterwards.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
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.
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.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
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!
> 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.
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?").
.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.
.*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?
Also, how many people do you know that would use OpenOffice even if it couldn't open
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
Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics, you can leave politics alone, but politics won't leave you alone.-rms
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.